I don't think we know enough about what went on with the kids and in the families to draw any reasonable conclusions.
As much as I dislike people letting superstition rule their lives (and the lives of those around them), the idea of the government forcibly removing children from their parents is at least equally as unsettling.
I would hope that the children are being well cared for and in loving family units, despite the possible overabundance of "moms". But, without seeing and hearing what goes on in their homes, it's a tough call to make.
Whacko religions (or even garden variety ones) give me the creeps more every day, but I don't know as just being a superstitious dolt is reason enough to remove kids from one's home...
This afternoon the TX supreme court (what a scary thought) ordered the Yearning for Zion kids back to their parents/the YFZ compound. I am sick, I mean literally sick enough to vomit about this.
Is it just my own past, having grown up in a cult? This whole situation has been giving me nightmares.......keeping me up at night. Do I just need to schedule an emergency appointment with a shrink, or are any of you feeling this unsettled?
ror
Clearly, Texas law regarding child abuse and severance of family relationships does NOT cover the kind of situation that those kids were in.
Texas law, probably like many other (most?) states, allows state child protective services agencies to remove children ONLY when immediate harm can be demonstrated or found to either have happened or be imminent.
Texas CPS did NOT meet that burden. And given that the raids were initiated based on fraudulent reports from an unstable person, I doubt they could have justified the raids anytime soon.
And given the logistics of that cult, I can't imagine a state agency would ever be able to make that kind of case.
If the TX state appeals and supreme court would have sanctioned those raids, they could reasonably have been labeled as ACTIVIST.
For sanctioning those raids based on the (reasonable) understanding of the practices of that cult would have been the equivalent of those courts MAKING laws.
Now, do I believe those kids were in danger? The pre-adolescents were NOT in danger, based on what we do know about the practices, of sexual abuse. Were those kids, boys and girls, subject to unreasonably strict (read: abusive) discipline? We do NOT know.
Were (are) teen girls subject to a culture that strongly promoted (sexually) abusive relationships and practices? Most likely.
However, the job of making laws belongs to legislatures, state and federal (Congress). And any such laws any legislature in the US were to try to pass would take immense degrees of political will to overcome natural opposition from any and every flavor of religion and religious organization in the US.
Only the most narrowly constructed laws would be possible, even if there is enough political will. The process would be arduous, any ambiguity would be subject to unbelievable scrutiny, both lobbying/activist activity in legislatures AND legal (constitutional) challenges in courts all the way up to the US Supreme Court.
By the time anything like that would be finished with the process(es), it would easily be more than 5 years and maybe decades.
I believe the way the state of Texas handled the situation was appalling. And I do believe that Texas caused much more harm than they will ultimately even be able to claim as good resulting from what they did.
Should something have been done?
I wish something constructive could have been done. But I also believe there has been NO social worker or agency with experience that would have given them insight to do it without causing tremendous emotional harm to the hundreds of kids involved.
I would think any attorneys for the YFZ folks would be preparing the mother of all class-action lawsuits about now.
It's all about legal, not necessarily all about right.
I think Texas broke the law in a big way. If those kids were receiving food, clothing and shelter, and were not in any grave physical danger of being beaten to death, starved to death, or seriously harmed physically, they should have been left with their parents.
If those teenage girls have been taught from infancy that they glorify God by marrying in their teens and bearing children for a man who is older and has other wives, well, they're being taught wrong, but on the other hand, is Texas interfering with their freedom of religion?
I'm not up on all of it, but it seems you have to treat the kids individually, not as a group ... unless they were a foster home ...
There may indeed be harm even if it is not lack of food or whatever (I'm mostly offering counterpoints or questions I have) .. but if there are 12 year olds being married or having sex with adults ... there is harm. (though in Spain or Mexico, I think age of consent may be 12)
It is interesting though ... where this religious freedom line blurs into state intervention.
it seems the real harm was done by the elders that had sex with the under aged. The children didn't need to be hauled away from their parents maybe, unless their parents were compliant with these men having sex with their children. But the men should be in jail for statutory rape? We can look at the chromosomes now, and see exactly who to incarcerate.
Does that seem right?
(oh yeah, Rocky was right one other time ... I'd have to look it up )
I don't think we know enough about what went on with the kids and in the families to draw any reasonable conclusions.
As much as I dislike people letting superstition rule their lives (and the lives of those around them), the idea of the government forcibly removing children from their parents is at least equally as unsettling.
I would hope that the children are being well cared for and in loving family units, despite the possible overabundance of "moms". But, without seeing and hearing what goes on in their homes, it's a tough call to make.
Whacko religions (or even garden variety ones) give me the creeps more every day, but I don't know as just being a superstitious dolt is reason enough to remove kids from one's home...
What he said.
In fact, this is so well - worded that it serves as a template for many hard issues of personal freedom vs governmental dictates. For example, abortion:
"I dunno,
I don't think we ever know enough of the particulars about what goes on to pass draconian laws.
As much as I dislike the idea of people aborting a growing fetus out of convenience, the idea of the government forcibly demanding that a woman carry to full term is at least equally as unsettling.
I would hope that all mothers' deliveries are safe and without incident. and that all conceptions are a result of loving union - resulting in children that are wanted and well cared for in loving families. Without knowing the particulars, however, it's a tough call to make.
Extreme Feminists give me the creeps - but I don't think bromide phrases like "Pro Life" and "When you were in womb i knew you" and "It's not a choice it's a child" are reasons enough to make every abortion wrong and illegal.
In fact, this is so well - worded that it serves as a template for many hard issues of personal freedom vs governmental dictates. For example, abortion:
"I dunno,
I don't think we ever know enough of the particulars about what goes on to pass draconian laws.
As much as I dislike the idea of people aborting a growing fetus out of convenience, the idea of the government forcibly demanding that a woman carry to full term is at least equally as unsettling.
I would hope that all mothers' deliveries are safe and without incident. and that all conceptions are a result of loving union - resulting in children that are wanted and well cared for in loving families. Without knowing the particulars, however, it's a tough call to make.
Extreme Feminists give me the creeps - but I don't think bromide phrases like "Pro Life" and "When you were in womb i knew you" and "It's not a choice it's a child" are reasons enough to make every abortion wrong and illegal.
Even though it's a tangent, yes, indeed, most of life's hard questions require complex thinking and diligent inquiry.
Well at least this "esteemed prophet" is getting the respect he deserves from the state of Utah ...
In an ongoing criminal investigation separate from the custody dispute, Texas authorities collected DNA swabs Thursday from sect leader Warren Jeffs. A search warrant for the DNA alleges that Jeffs had "spiritual" marriages with four girls, ages 12 to 15.
Jeffs, who is revered as a prophet, is serving a prison sentence for a Utah conviction of being accomplice to rape in the marriage of a 14-year-old girl to a 19-year-old sect member. He awaits trial in Arizona on similar charges.
Too bad vpw didn't get pushed a little harder to lay off the young women ...
Well at least this "esteemed prophet" is getting the respect he deserves from the state of Utah ...
In an ongoing criminal investigation separate from the custody dispute, Texas authorities collected DNA swabs Thursday from sect leader Warren Jeffs. A search warrant for the DNA alleges that Jeffs had "spiritual" marriages with four girls, ages 12 to 15.
Jeffs, who is revered as a prophet, is serving a prison sentence for a Utah conviction of being accomplice to rape in the marriage of a 14-year-old girl to a 19-year-old sect member. He awaits trial in Arizona on similar charges.
Too bad vpw didn't get pushed a little harder to lay off the young women ...
Indeed. btw, that specific news copy (text) has been carried by numerous online news outlets (Associated Press), as opposed to being a Fox News exclusive (even though the link provided by rhino is to Fox News).
Indeed. btw, that specific news copy (text) has been carried by numerous online news outlets (Associated Press), as opposed to being a Fox News exclusive (even though the link provided by rhino is to Fox News).
Along with a Texas judge ordering reunions of children and families today, the current cult leader apparently proclaimed publicly that they will no longer allow marriages involving girls until the girl reaches the age of consent in the state of residence.
While that proclamation might not mean anything (if there's no accountability), it could mean something good ultimately will come from the terrible situation.
Further, I heard tv news reports that said some of the mothers being reunited with their children are choosing not to return to the YFZ compound so that they can more easily cooperate with Texas child welfare officials as things develop. One such provision was for the parents to attend parenting classes.
Given the potential for disaster (for the individual children, especially emotionally), it sounds like many of those involved will alter the way they raise the kids... I hope it works out.
Recommended Posts
George Aar
I dunno Radar,
I don't think we know enough about what went on with the kids and in the families to draw any reasonable conclusions.
As much as I dislike people letting superstition rule their lives (and the lives of those around them), the idea of the government forcibly removing children from their parents is at least equally as unsettling.
I would hope that the children are being well cared for and in loving family units, despite the possible overabundance of "moms". But, without seeing and hearing what goes on in their homes, it's a tough call to make.
Whacko religions (or even garden variety ones) give me the creeps more every day, but I don't know as just being a superstitious dolt is reason enough to remove kids from one's home...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Clearly, Texas law regarding child abuse and severance of family relationships does NOT cover the kind of situation that those kids were in.
Texas law, probably like many other (most?) states, allows state child protective services agencies to remove children ONLY when immediate harm can be demonstrated or found to either have happened or be imminent.
Texas CPS did NOT meet that burden. And given that the raids were initiated based on fraudulent reports from an unstable person, I doubt they could have justified the raids anytime soon.
And given the logistics of that cult, I can't imagine a state agency would ever be able to make that kind of case.
If the TX state appeals and supreme court would have sanctioned those raids, they could reasonably have been labeled as ACTIVIST.
For sanctioning those raids based on the (reasonable) understanding of the practices of that cult would have been the equivalent of those courts MAKING laws.
Now, do I believe those kids were in danger? The pre-adolescents were NOT in danger, based on what we do know about the practices, of sexual abuse. Were those kids, boys and girls, subject to unreasonably strict (read: abusive) discipline? We do NOT know.
Were (are) teen girls subject to a culture that strongly promoted (sexually) abusive relationships and practices? Most likely.
However, the job of making laws belongs to legislatures, state and federal (Congress). And any such laws any legislature in the US were to try to pass would take immense degrees of political will to overcome natural opposition from any and every flavor of religion and religious organization in the US.
Only the most narrowly constructed laws would be possible, even if there is enough political will. The process would be arduous, any ambiguity would be subject to unbelievable scrutiny, both lobbying/activist activity in legislatures AND legal (constitutional) challenges in courts all the way up to the US Supreme Court.
By the time anything like that would be finished with the process(es), it would easily be more than 5 years and maybe decades.
I believe the way the state of Texas handled the situation was appalling. And I do believe that Texas caused much more harm than they will ultimately even be able to claim as good resulting from what they did.
Should something have been done?
I wish something constructive could have been done. But I also believe there has been NO social worker or agency with experience that would have given them insight to do it without causing tremendous emotional harm to the hundreds of kids involved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Somebody call Ripley's Believe It Or Not.
For once I agree with Rocky. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
I would think any attorneys for the YFZ folks would be preparing the mother of all class-action lawsuits about now.
It's all about legal, not necessarily all about right.
I think Texas broke the law in a big way. If those kids were receiving food, clothing and shelter, and were not in any grave physical danger of being beaten to death, starved to death, or seriously harmed physically, they should have been left with their parents.
If those teenage girls have been taught from infancy that they glorify God by marrying in their teens and bearing children for a man who is older and has other wives, well, they're being taught wrong, but on the other hand, is Texas interfering with their freedom of religion?
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Koff, koff, ROCKY sputter, IS wheeze, ABSOLUTELY choke RIGHT!!! hack, gasp :o
Whew! That wasn't so painful :)
So is Watered Garden. The state had no right to do what it did and I believe a jillion dollar class action suit is in order.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Duh! Like it hasn't happened before?!?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I'm not up on all of it, but it seems you have to treat the kids individually, not as a group ... unless they were a foster home ...
There may indeed be harm even if it is not lack of food or whatever (I'm mostly offering counterpoints or questions I have) .. but if there are 12 year olds being married or having sex with adults ... there is harm. (though in Spain or Mexico, I think age of consent may be 12)
It is interesting though ... where this religious freedom line blurs into state intervention.
it seems the real harm was done by the elders that had sex with the under aged. The children didn't need to be hauled away from their parents maybe, unless their parents were compliant with these men having sex with their children. But the men should be in jail for statutory rape? We can look at the chromosomes now, and see exactly who to incarcerate.
Does that seem right?
(oh yeah, Rocky was right one other time ... I'd have to look it up
)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yanagisawa
What he said.
In fact, this is so well - worded that it serves as a template for many hard issues of personal freedom vs governmental dictates. For example, abortion:
"I dunno,
I don't think we ever know enough of the particulars about what goes on to pass draconian laws.
As much as I dislike the idea of people aborting a growing fetus out of convenience, the idea of the government forcibly demanding that a woman carry to full term is at least equally as unsettling.
I would hope that all mothers' deliveries are safe and without incident. and that all conceptions are a result of loving union - resulting in children that are wanted and well cared for in loving families. Without knowing the particulars, however, it's a tough call to make.
Extreme Feminists give me the creeps - but I don't think bromide phrases like "Pro Life" and "When you were in womb i knew you" and "It's not a choice it's a child" are reasons enough to make every abortion wrong and illegal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Even though it's a tangent, yes, indeed, most of life's hard questions require complex thinking and diligent inquiry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
As far as huge class action suits ... can you sue the government? I'm thinking you can not.
I don't know if they could sue the individuals either, unless they were terribly out of line in their actions ...
but I'm just guessing ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Depends on which government.
The US federal govt.? No, I don't think so. Arizona state government, at least in some kinds of situations, yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Well at least this "esteemed prophet" is getting the respect he deserves from the state of Utah ...
Too bad vpw didn't get pushed a little harder to lay off the young women ...
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Indeed. btw, that specific news copy (text) has been carried by numerous online news outlets (Associated Press), as opposed to being a Fox News exclusive (even though the link provided by rhino is to Fox News).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Along with a Texas judge ordering reunions of children and families today, the current cult leader apparently proclaimed publicly that they will no longer allow marriages involving girls until the girl reaches the age of consent in the state of residence.
While that proclamation might not mean anything (if there's no accountability), it could mean something good ultimately will come from the terrible situation.
Further, I heard tv news reports that said some of the mothers being reunited with their children are choosing not to return to the YFZ compound so that they can more easily cooperate with Texas child welfare officials as things develop. One such provision was for the parents to attend parenting classes.
Given the potential for disaster (for the individual children, especially emotionally), it sounds like many of those involved will alter the way they raise the kids... I hope it works out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
I feel sorry for those kids that they have stupid parents,and no one will know until the kids speak out for themselves.
Most abused kids are afraid especiallly if they think it is Gods plan to follow there parents wishes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.