Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Texas Child Protective Services v. 1st Amendment
Posted by: McQ on Friday, May 16, 2008

CPS, apparently, will dictate the terms necessary to reunite mothers and children from the FLDS:
Abandoning their religion and husbands may be the only way that FLDS mothers will be reunited with their children. Texas official issued new rules, Thursday, that dictate what the mothers will have to do before the state will return the 464 children.

[...]

FLDS Attorney, Rod Parker says that “the rules are subject to interpretation by Child Protective Services (CPS) in a manner that makes it impossible for these people to live on the ranch.”

To hammer their point even harder, Texas officials told FLDS communities that if they don’t cooperate, the court could “terminate parental rights” and “appoint a conservator with authority to consent to each child’s adoption.”

“Those terms are going to be defined, ultimately, by Texas CPS, and what Texas CPS says is a safe environment or appropriate education, exclude participation in this religion,” Parker said.
The exercise of one's religion is, supposedly a constitutionally protected right ... at least protected from any legislation prohibiting such exercise by Congress, and thus, the federal government.
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The obvious implication, at least as I read it, is that's a right to be enjoyed by all citizens within the United States.

But is that the case? What right has a state to require anyone to abandon their religion as a prerequisite to keeping their child? Certainly I'm not here to defend anyone in what I consider to be a rather malevolent and abusive religious sect, but it brings forward a number of interesting legal questions.

What if CPS decides Islam is a religion which is injurious to the welfare of children? Can it dictate Islamic mothers abandon their religion to keep their children (think of genital mutilation practiced by some sects)?

Does the Texas CPS have the legal right to require anyone to "give up their religion" for their children?

If so, on what grounds?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
The operative word is "participation."

You can’t stop someone from believing in Voodoo, but you can certainly stop them from "participation" in the ritual slaughter of animals.

You can’t stop someone from believing in polygamous, incestuous statutory rape as a religious rite. But you can certainly stop them from "participation" in it.

As a First Amendment question, this is simply not new territory.
 
Written By: KipEsquire
URL: http://www.kipesquire.com
No Kip, it’s "participation in this religion". Not just certain religious rite . . .
What if CPS decides Islam is a religion which is injurious to the welfare of children?
Heads would roll . . . which is why it won’t happen.


 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Uh "Congress"...not "Texas".....

One more reason I’m not a libertarian...anything goes.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
An integral part of belief in a religion is participation in its tenets. Most believe you really can’t do one without the other.

The law says that the consumption of peyote is illegal. But exceptions are made for some Native Americans who claim it to be a part of their religious beliefs and that requires its use.

Unless there is a law which specifically (and constitutionally) outlaws this particular religion, I’m at a loss as to how CPS can demand that those who believe in it abandon it.

Certainly they can make the case about abuse (just a cruelty to animals charge can be made against those practicing voodoo without ever requiring them to abandon the practice of their religion - i.e. there are legal consequences to it’s practice which have nothing to do with its "abandonment". You leave it up to the participants to make that choice) and use many other legally sound reasons to keep the children, but a requirement to abandon a religion absent any legal basis seems a bit of an overstep to me.
As a First Amendment question, this is simply not new territory.
I agree (although apparently not as you do) ... which is why I’m questioning CPS’s right to do this.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Joe -

So where is the line drawn, who draws it, and why is that better?
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Uh "Congress"...not "Texas".....
Uh, yeah, Joe, and that was noted in the post.

But the amendment has other implications, i.e. a right all citizens enjoy, whether in Texas (which didn’t exist with the amendment was written) or any other state.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Joe - You forget that the 14th amendment extended to the States the same requirements to follow the Bill of Rights (and other amendments) that the Fed has.

However, I think that since the following of their religion meant their YOUNG teen daughters got married off and raped might make a compelling argument on the state’s behalf.

After all, if NAMBLA tried to become a religion, the Govt could still forbid the sodomizing of young boys.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Joe - under every form of political system and rule, humans do things that other humans dislike, no matter what the law says. Even under whatever ideal system you can imagine, people are going to make decisions that you don’t condone. Does it just make you feel better to know that certain activities are legally prohibited, even though they occur? Do you think there would be a significant difference of practice of activity X (fill in the blank) in a libertarian culture vs. whatever culture you’d prefer, what would be the cost if so, and would that cost be worth it?
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Clearly, the FLDS folks need better lawyers.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
However, I think that since the following of their religion meant their YOUNG teen daughters got married off and raped might make a compelling argument on the state’s behalf.
It partially gets to the point of all of this - what is or isn’t considered a religion and who, if anyone (or any institution), has the right to declare one legitimate and one not legitimate?

CPS?

Hardly. What I’m trying to get at here is this "authority" to require the abandonment of a religion seems beyond the charter of CPS and opens some fairly interesting legal questions.

And, as everyone can tell, the opinions are quite diverse.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Just why is it wrong for the mothers to "prove that they have provided the children with “a home free of persons who have, or will abuse the children"? Why is it wrong for the state to "know every person living in any building where any of the children live"?

The state is not outlawing this religion, nor are they preventing the women from practicing it, if they so choose, the state is simply saying that cover of religion is not grounds to violate laws that apply equally to everybody. I can’t use my religion to avoid paying taxes, and I can’t use my religion to subject kids to an environment where they are likely to be abused (based on the specific practice of grown men raping girls and forcing them into marriage, and not practice of men having more than one (adult) wife).

Mothers have long (and rightfully) been subjected to criminal charges for letting their kids be abused by others, and they shouldn’t get a free pass by screaming ’religion’. If a mother can be sent away and lose her kids for letting her boyfriend rape her young daughter, why should these women be subjected to any less of a standard? In fact, doing so because of their ’religion’ is exactly the type of favortism banned by the Amendment.
 
Written By: Steve Sturm
URL: http://
FWIW....

Article 1, Section 6 of the Texas State Constitution
All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.
 
Written By: SDM
URL: http://
My feeling is that the Mothers will all agree to the Texas requirements to get their kids - which will of course put most of them on welfare. The husbands will relocate and after collecting off the dole the Mothers will move out of state (country?) to rejoin the husbands. In the meantime some core members of the sect can sue Texas and probably win a good some of money for their church.

Actually they should consider California since the CS Supreme Court just struck down the definition of marriage and there’s nothing wrong with those women marrying as same sex couples who live with a guy...

Fact is Texas totally screwed this up and they are going to pay... Taking the kids from their Mothers opened the state to a ton of liability - what happens if there are broken bones (one of the supposed complaints about the treatment of the children.) What if there is even a single rape or abuse by anyone one of those kids comes into contact with? While in state custody do the parents get to sue for child abuse?

Fact is the Mothers should have been separated from each other at the start - and each set of kids and mothers should have self identified - with kids indicating who they thought their Mom was and Mom’s indicating their kids until the DNA could be sorted. Having the Fathers out of the picture resolved any questions on abuse while things were sorted, but it kept the families with the maximum normallcy until the truth could be determined.

Look I think it’s a messed up lifestyle - I wouldn’t want my daughter to become a Mus—-, I mean poligamist wife, but Texas managed to completely screw up the handling of the situation. Even Great Britian realizes once the polygamy is in place it’s hard to end - in fact the only effective way is the one the US originally took - imprison the husbands split up the wives geographically - don’t mess with the kids. More important as the definition of marriage continues to be reduced to just a generic definition defining a family unit the US is going to have more and more trouble holding off the polygamists.
 
Written By: BIllS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com
some = sum in paragraph 1.
 
Written By: BIllS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com
btw, the biggest threat to Texas’s culpability and damage payments to these soon to be victims is also noted in the linked article but not referenced:
The initial call, that alleged that a 16-year-old girl was beaten and raped by FLDS member Dale Barlow, has never been identified, and is believed by many to have been a prank.
- but authorities are just ’convinced’ (believe) that there was a problem - they better be able to prove one or those authorities should lose their jobs over their beliefs.
 
Written By: BIllS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com
Uh, I dunno...when their "religion" breaks the law?

Islam, at least currently, does not break the law, however much I despise it. However, the FLDS allows for the molestation of children and multiple marriages as part of their "religion."

That is not a "religion" - it is a cult. If adults want to belong to the cult, that is their right to be stupid. But they cannot be allowed to raise children in that cult.

I hope Texas wins this one. These cults need to be exposed and destroyed, however long it takes.
 
Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://
Mothers have long (and rightfully) been subjected to criminal charges for letting their kids be abused by others, and they shouldn’t get a free pass by screaming ’religion’. If a mother can be sent away and lose her kids for letting her boyfriend rape her young daughter, why should these women be subjected to any less of a standard? In fact, doing so because of their ’religion’ is exactly the type of favortism banned by the Amendment.
It is one thing to say to a mother, "if you knowingly subject your child to circumstances that will result in abuse and rape, we’ll take your child away" and saying "you must abandon your religion".

I have absolutely no problem with the first statement. I have a large problem with the second.

Most would assume that the religion isn’t just about rape and abuse. The state has no right to require anyone abandon their religion as a reason to keep their children. I think it has every right to require they not knowingly put their children in a situation in which rape and abuse are probable. If that causes a mother to voluntarily abandon her religion to keep the children, then fine. But it isn’t something the CPS has any authority to legally require as far as I can determine.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
These cults need to be exposed and destroyed, however long it takes.
Of course one man’s cult is another man’s religion.

Seems to me the state has every right to enforce its laws, but it has little if any right, to decide what is or isn’t a legitimate religion and whether an adult can or can’t "participate" in it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
but it has little if any right, to decide what is or isn’t a legitimate religion and whether an adult can or can’t "participate" in it.
Though when it promotes the violations of some pretty serious laws (like rape of a minor), then I think there is a sufficiently compeling reason for the state to prohibit membership.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
James,
Let me parse your quote to make sure I’ve got the true portion...
Islam, at least currently, ... allows for the molestation of children and multiple marriages as part of their "religion."
The statement above is true - Islam allows for ’marriage’ as young as age 9, and a muslim man can have up to 4 wives. I know that FLDS allows for multiple wives and I believe it also allows for wives prior to the age of consent so I’m not claiming that portion of your statement isn’t true. But I want to make sure we’ve got the Muslim part right.

As for whether there is a problem; from my view - yeah I have concerns - but the ends don’t always justify the means - breaking up the cult should have been handled better - especially given the protections and freedoms we are supposed to have. Yes it is possible that curbs or agreements from that church related to some behavior may have been necessary but in this case those demands came after a military raid, after children were pulled from their parent and sent across the state (hopefully to eventually return but some will probably get "lost").

I wouldn’t want my neighbor to be able to claim that I wasn’t protecting my children and wasn’t taking them to Catholic church but was teaching my own brand of Christianity (not Rev. Wrights), claim I was a cult. Then make a prank call to 911 as my wife claiming I beat her and send the SWAT team to get my kids... The having the state come back telling me that my wife could get my kids but she had to move out of my house.

But maybe you are cool with that, cause the only difference would be if my Sister of some other woman happened to live in the same house. More importantly the fact that some of these ’wives’ may have had kids with other Dads - well if that’s a crime we better make clear that women who have affairs aren’t just ruining a marriage - they are now breaking the law and endangering their children - is that also what you believe?

Nice goal in ending the cult - however, the State is in the wrong in how it was handled.
 
Written By: BIllS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com
Though when it promotes the violations of some pretty serious laws (like rape of a minor), then I think there is a sufficiently compeling reason for the state to prohibit membership.
I think the state’s duty is to uphold the law - in this case laws against rape and abuse.

Genital mutilation, practiced by some sects of Islam, isn’t a basis for the state to require the mother abandon her religion, but it is certainly a basis to say
"if you do it here, you go to jail for a very long time."
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
But it would also be grounds for them to lose the kids, and to give the kids back while the parent is still neck-deep in the reason they lost the kids in the first place is just silly.

I wasn’t aware many Muslims in the US practiced genital mutilation... If they do, I’d fully support the state yanking the kids outta the home. The foster system might (ok, it does) suck a big one, but frankly I would prefer it to having Mr Happy disfigured...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
But it would also be grounds for them to lose the kids, and to give the kids back while the parent is still neck-deep in the reason they lost the kids in the first place is just silly.
Not on religious grounds, Scott. On the grounds that rape and abuse of children is illegal. That’s where the state’s authority ends. It cannot dictate beyond that about what religion a person believes or participates in - it can, however, flatly tell the adherents that if they break the laws of the state there will be consequences - like losing their children.
I wasn’t aware many Muslims in the US practiced genital mutilation... If they do, I’d fully support the state yanking the kids outta the home.
As I recall, there have been some cases with Somali immigrants. And essentially the state did exactly what I said and no one was required to ’abandon’ their religion.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
More importantly the fact that some of these ’wives’ may have had kids with other Dads
It’s the part about the 18 year old having a 6 year old child that bugs me, frankly.

I like how you ignore the fact that these "wives" were 13 and 14 at the time their Maiden Head was taken. Very permissive of you.

I’m all for "do whatever you want", but as soon as that "whatever" starts involving watching the submarines race with a pre-teen you and I are gonna have words...

Short words, that possibly rhyme with "slam" and "sang".
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
It’s the part about the 18 year old having a 6 year old child that bugs me, frankly.
A clear violation of the law given "age of consent" laws. And probably, at a minimum, a statutory rape charge as well. One way you stop stuff like this is by rigorously enforcing the law.

But you don’t try to overstep your authority by requiring anyone to abandon their religion.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Like I said... If that religion actively encourages the rape of minors, then the kids born to people of that faith need to be removed from that environment - to leave them there and prosecute the later rapist strikes me as foolish and wrong.

And if the parents want the kids back, then frankly I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say "Ok, but you aren’t getting them back so long as you are part of a group/religion that says it’s fine to have sex with the kids."

It’s silly to leave the kids in that environment, and it’s equally as silly to send them back to it...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
I like how you ignore the fact that these "wives" were 13 and 14 at the time their Maiden Head was taken. Very permissive of you.
Isn’t having a 13 year old wife still legal in some states? It certainly is accepted in most cultures, and most cultures accept the concept of multiple wifes as well.

If you legally marry a 13 year old, it ain’t rape . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Like I said... If that religion actively encourages the rape of minors, then the kids born to people of that faith need to be removed from that environment - to leave them there and prosecute the later rapist strikes me as foolish and wrong.
You are gonna have a lot of fun persuing this with the ROP . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Like I said... If that religion actively encourages the rape of minors, then the kids born to people of that faith need to be removed from that environment - to leave them there and prosecute the later rapist strikes me as foolish and wrong.
Tell me where I’ve said they should be left in such an environment?

What I’ve said is the state of Texas has no business telling someone they must abandon their religion as a condition to keeping their children.

Instead the state of Texas should enforce the law that exists now and make it clear that should the mother take her minor children into a situation where such an environment exists, the state will take the children from her.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Worldwide age of consent.

It now makes sense why they have Mormon colonies in Mexico . . .


Add of concent in Texas is 18, but according to some websites you can marry at 13 or 14 with parental permission. So you could possibly have a legal wife of 14 or 15, but only one . . .

You could have as many 18 year olds as you want . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
If having a 14 y.o. wife is fine (as long as you have only one), that opens the door to the whole FLDS thing if poligamy is recognized.

And gay marriage will likely lead to legitimized poligamy.

One solution would be to raise the min marriage age . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Add of concent in Texas is 18, but according to some websites you can marry at 13 or 14 with parental permission. So you could possibly have a legal wife of 14 or 15, but only one . . .

You could have as many 18 year olds as you want . . .
Last time I took math, 18 - 6 was 12. So an 18 year old with a 6 year old kid most likely conceived at 11.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Last time I took math, 18 - 6 was 12. So an 18 year old with a 6 year old kid most likely conceived at 11.
I was responding to this statement:
I like how you ignore the fact that these "wives" were 13 and 14 at the time their Maiden Head was taken.
And simply pointing out that it could be legal.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Scott, you advocate removing children from homes, preemptively, because the parents approve of, and teach approval of, things that the laws of the United States make illegal. You sure you want to go down that road? Hell, why limit it to religious belief? If parents tell their kids that it’s ok to drink before they’re twenty-one, as long as it’s with them, yank ’em out of there. If that belief system actively encourages the breaking of drinking laws, then the kids born to people of that belief system need to be removed from that environment.

You know, they already have a word for taking away someone’s rights based on their beliefs, rather than their actions.
 
Written By: Bench
URL: http://
Hey I’m not condoning sex with the underage - I have a problem with that - I think if it’s proven and the guilty party identified you send him to jail, you don’t necessary take baby J from Mom because Dad slept with the 13yr old girl next door, you chop off Dad’s equipment to solve the problem.

Note if you reviewed the story one of the claims is that girls ages are according to the defense being reported as younger then actual - which in some cases calls into question which calls alot of the claims into still more question - that’s a big part of the problem - the state has removed children without having proof that those children were endangered - my personal guess - some were BUT some weren’t.

Initially Texas took the right stance they said - hey you grab a minor and get her pregnant it’s off to jail with you Mr.; Plus she and possibly her sisters are out of there. Similarly if the boys really have been abused (physical or sex) they are out - not because Daddy sleeps around in the house but because of the abuse.

Preemptive response - "How do we know that these things aren’t happening? we need to prevent it." - response - hand over your kids I don’t know these things aren’t happening in your house either I’m locking them in a bubble so they can be constantly monitored.

Look life isn’t perfect and if you didn’t figure it out from the RC Priest scandal even the most trusted can’t always be trusted. When abuse happens we punish; When we can identify an abuser we look to protect from that abuser but our system doesn’t have all the tools to provide guaranteed protection from the unknown and all possible threats - and unless they can prove that abuse was rampant through all those families they have wronged at least some of those families.
 
Written By: BillS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com/
Well, in this case, it’s hardly pre-emptive, is it? a huge number of young teens were bedded by old guys, and knocked up.

And no one in that compound has a problem with it. Those people shouldn’t be raising kids, and only an ACLU wacko would say the SHOULD be raising kids...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Those people shouldn’t be raising kids, and only an ACLU wacko would say the SHOULD be raising kids...
Yeah, that’s what we want, the government being the arbiter of who can and can’t raise kids. Look, these may be big stinkin’ gross dirty fleas. But let’s not burn down the barn, ok?
 
Written By: Bench
URL: http://
Scott’s claim
a huge number of young teens were bedded by old guys, and knocked up.
but the only documentation that seems to be official that I’ve found says:
the state’s own documents show just three teenagers in custody are pregnant. Of those girls, one will turn 18 in a few months and another merely refused to take a pregnancy test, said Rod Parker, a Salt Lake City attorney representing families
http://origin.sltrib.com/news/ci_9056589

Now I’m not saying that’s acceptable but let’s follow our legal system and grant the presumption of innocence except where proven guilty. We now have a single proven underage mother. Are you ready to set a standard that in any household where an underage girl becomes pregnant (recall we don’t know who the father is) that all of the children of that household should be removed to protective custody - or do you just want to do it here and hope it doesn’t happen in your family because you’re "normal". I’m not defending them I’m upset with how Texas has handled this.

btw another note on the ’huge numbers’ you are reporting:
The court document, also reviewed by The Tribune, includes women who became mothers before the FLDS’ move to Texas or before the state raised the age of marriage, with parents’ permission, from 14 to 16 in 2005.
- sorry can’t prosecute for things that weren’t illegal when they occured...

Finally let’s consider nursing infants. There is pretty much universal agreement in the medical community that breast feeding is benficial to the infant:
CPS assured nursing mothers they would be able to take breast milk to their infants but, as of early Friday, had been given no information on where the children had been taken.
Because a nursing infant can be brainwashed??? Why remove them, what possible danger were they in? Anyone who thinks an infant should be separated from their mother while breast feeding is competing for the title of wacko.
 
Written By: BillS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com/
Oh yeah, there is also this on the wire - looks like the state isn’t necessarily doing well in the courtroom:

http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9273575
Lawyers for the state conceded in court today that the woman from the polygamist sect who gave birth this week while in the state’s custody is not a minor and said she is free to return to her home
*BTW I’m sure you are wondering why I’m so upset - living in a nanny blue state I am convinced that before my children are grown the state will try to take them from me and I abhor the thought of how easy people are making that.
 
Written By: BillS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com/
Got some details on that underage Mother and her "old guy" husband:
Louisa Bradshaw Jessop maintains she is 22, but the department has her classified as 17. She has two other children, ages 3 and 2, and is in state custody with them ...
Jessop’s husband, Rulan Danial Jessop, 24, filed a habeas corpus petition in Austin last Wednesday that argues his wife is being improperly detained by the state. The couple provided a birth certificate, driver license and other documents as proof of Louisa Jessop’s age.
http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9238077

Yeah it’s those old guys fault... Hmm I’m more than 2 years older than my wife and she’s pregnant... I don’t believe what the establishment thinks I should... yeah they’ll be here any day for my family.

btw, at least they keeping everyone safe now that they’ve removed them:
Children living in crowded quarters that led to upper respiratory illnesses. Youngsters plagued with diarrhea from unhealthy foods they usually did not eat. Distressed mothers enduring widespread rudeness - such as flashlights shined in their faces as they tried to sleep.
Mental health professionals who helped care for FLDS women and children in the weeks after an April raid on the YFZ Ranch describe conditions and treatment they perceived as harsh and unnecessary.
"Never in all my life, and I am one of the older ladies, have I been so ashamed of being a Texan and seeing what and how our government agencies treat people," wrote one employee of Hill Country Community
http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9238520 - btw this link when you follow it has even more information on just how bad they’ve been treated...

But I’ll leave you with this image - try putting your children/grandchildren into the roles:
A boy estimated at age 3 walked along a row of cots asking for someone to rock him after he was separated from his mother, one employee wrote. Two CPS worker trailed the youngster taking notes but not helping him. His brother, age 8, eventually took the child into his arms and sat with him in a rocking chair.
 
Written By: BillS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com/
Here in Utah there are many similar sects to the FLDS, but which don’t participate in underage marriages. AFAIK the difference between them and the FLDS is that the FLDS prophet has been the one commanding the marriages with underage girls. They believe in the absolute authority of their prophet. So it seems to me that if you want to stop the underage marriage-arranging, you do one of two things:
A. Remove the prophet.
B. Allow that the prophet can arrange marriages, but that these marriages can’t be consummated until after the girl reaches the age of consent— and this will be enforced by having the girl still live with her parents or something.

There’s no need to prohibit them from teaching their religion, provided that the state’s interest really is to see that underage girls aren’t boinked. But that would require officials to actually understand something about the FLDS religion. And God forbid that should happen to those nice Baptist folk out there, right? You have to understand there’s a longstanding antipathy between Mormons (real Mormons or FLDS) and Baptists. For some reason Baptists really have it in for us Mormons, more than for any other non-Baptist sect. They seem determined to misrepresent us in every possible way, to the point where one of my husband’s colleagues actually asked him if Mormons really had horns like he’d been told. (My husband got the guy to feel his head and say "Do you feel it... do you feel... kinda stupid?")

I think the state of Texas has forgotten that it is still legal in this country to belong to a cult, even if it’s an icky icky polygamist cult, and especially if it’s somehow affiliated with those icky icky Mormons.
 
Written By: Wacky Hermit
URL: http://organicbabyfarm.blogspot.com
"Those people shouldn’t be raising kids, and only an ACLU wacko would say the SHOULD be raising kids..."

And everybody who isn’t a member of this sect IS qualified to raise kids? Puhleeze. Do you have any idea how many kids are not being properly raised in this country? The various governments, including Texas, cannot handle the current number of child abuse/neglect cases. All the reports I have seen say these kids are well fed and taken care of and not physically abused, which puts them ahead of millions of other kids in this country who are allowed to remain in the custody of their parent(s). This wouldn’t be the first time overzealous government officials overstepped their bounds.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
If this incident doesn’t open your eyes to the problem we face in this country with c.p.s. then nothing will.
Anonymous tip my ass! This is the oldest and most effective trick in the book!
Make no mistake people, you don’t own your children, the government does. And as they have clearly shown, they are not at all good parents.
 
Written By: ron belveal
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider