TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Which is greater - religion or protecting children from sex abuse?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which is greater - religion or protecting children from sex abuse? - Page 3

post #61 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
No, most news outlets are presenting both sides of the story. Deseret presents only one-- that of the people of the FLDS who have chosen to stay at the ranch. Not the mothers who left voluntarily to go to the battered women's shelters, not the children, but the views and opinions of the perpetrators of the abuse.

The one article contains quotes that call the welfare workers Nazis and say that the only abuse the children has ever experienced is since they've been taken away into the real world. It does not provide any information or quotes from the CPS or the state whatsoever.
You didn't look close enough Z, here is a link for you.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...270818,00.html

with quotes from CPS and everything.
post #62 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Skippy, they did put a few dozen of the boys in foster care.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/15/...iref=hpmostpop
My bad I was thinking of the alleged underaged pregnant girls and sort of breezed over that part.

ETA: However, no amount of crying about the children or mothers current conditions will ever convince me, EVER, that they would have been better off left locked away in that compound as sex slaves to perverted, criminal old men...EVER!

As for the prosecution angle, I believe that getting them away from people that would keep beating them over the head with that "honor thy father and thy mother" BS in an attempt to silence them was a good idea as well.
post #63 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
You didn't look close enough Z, here is a link for you.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...270818,00.html

with quotes from CPS and everything.
Oh for goodness' sake. I was still talking about my original statement that they're biased.

Fine, you're right. They're completely unbiased and I relent and you're right.
post #64 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
My bad I was thinking of the alleged underaged pregnant girls and sort of breezed over that part.

ETA: However, no amount of crying about the children or mothers current conditions will ever convince me, EVER, that they would have been better off left locked away in that compound as sex slaves to perverted, criminal old men...EVER!

As for the prosecution angle, I believe that getting them away from people that would keep beating them over the head with that "honor thy father and thy mother" BS in an attempt to silence them was a good idea as well.
I agree that, in the long run, these children will be much better off, they have been liberated as far as I am concerned.

I just pray that CPS and all the authorities involved try as hard as they can to make this situation the least traumatic as possible for these kids.

What I do NOT agree with (IF this is true) is giving little girls under age 12 pelvic exams. I'm sorry I do not think that is right. I hope it comes out that it hasn't happened but it was insinuated by some of the mother's. Which at this point doesn't mean alot, they are apt to say anything to get the public's sympathy.
post #65 of 83
If 6 women had left, I wish they had stuck around and talked. Leaving will help them, but it won't help the children. If some of the adult women would open up and talk it would help tremendously.

This is a bit eye opening. Although this story was called, by someone on another website, 'heresay from someone with an axe to grind.'. See what you all think.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4005519.shtml
post #66 of 83
If anyone still has their doubts about the horrors the men in this cult perpetrated...
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bes...gamy.crime.cnn


Cindy- they have to give them pelvic exams. There are allegations that they've been raped. My pediatrician gave me a very cursory pelvic exam every year my whole life (with my mom in the room, he was just an old-school doctor) and it didn't scar me at all.
post #67 of 83
I have been keeping a close eye on the local newspaper in San Angelo.
Especially the comments or bloggers of the articles in the newspaper there.
Some of the bloggers are, obviously, FLDS members. Holy Cow

http://www.gosanangelo.com/


I know you are right Z, but I just can't help thinking how utterly awful that must be for those little girls.
post #68 of 83
There is some mention of "Banking on Heaven". I read the book "Under the Banner of Heaven" - not my usual fare but it seemed interesting. In parts of this book, the author speaks of Jeffs and the community he built.

There is no free will in this "religion" for children or women. There is no choice. Its a breeding ground for all types of cultish behaviors. It saddens and sickens me.
post #69 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
If anyone still has their doubts about the horrors the men in this cult perpetrated...
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bes...gamy.crime.cnn


Cindy- they have to give them pelvic exams. There are allegations that they've been raped. My pediatrician gave me a very cursory pelvic exam every year my whole life (with my mom in the room, he was just an old-school doctor) and it didn't scar me at all.
I watched the Video, I want to throw up. Waterboarding babies. Little babies.
I am so glad the State of Texas has taken these children.
post #70 of 83
Here is a Salt Lake Tribune article on a possible source for the phone call.
And a Deseret News article on the same.

An older Salt Lake Tribune article that includes the following closing paragraph:

Quote:
Some experts say it matters less if Sarah is never found or turns out not to exist.
It is the strength or weakness of the state's evidence of alleged abuse found at the ranch that will matter when Judge Walther decides whether the 416 FLDS children will go to foster homes, they say.
John J. Sampson, a University of Texas law professor and expert on family law, said those cases will focus on what investigators found once they were at the ranch.
But if the state hopes to later bring criminal charges, they must find Sarah.
"The problem for the state is this girl is the linchpin that holds together any criminal case against the group or even any individual," said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor.
Personally, I really think that mandatory, individual interviews by state child welfare agencies would have been the best way to handle this. If the interviews were repeated maybe monthly at first, and then every six months or so for a few years, anyone who felt that they wanted to leave would be able to do so. If no-one took advantage of private interviews to report abuse or ask to leave in five or so years, then it would be pretty clear that their really wasn't a problem. As others have said, interviews and safe exit routes are the best and most effective way to target any perpetrators of abuse.

For thousands of years women have married when under the age of 18. The legal bright line of 18 is quite artificial. Now, I'm extremely happy I live in a world where I had an extended childhood, but I was interested in sex before I hit the age of 18. Having women marry under the age of 18 is not necessarily sexual abuse or pedophilia. Sure, they might be fulfilling a social ideal everyone here on this board thinks is far from ideal, but different social expectations do not always equal abuse.

Yes, Warren Jeffs was messed up and messed up the FLDS even more than it was already messed up. Apparently, he did force women to get married way too young, and, guess what, he's in prison for it. That's the right approach. Busing all of the children away is not the right approach.

Yes, we should prevent abuse as much as possible, but breaking up families just because they live in this compound is not the way to do it. Investigating the compound and providing continual avenues of exit and safe reporting are the way to do it. That way, the culture of the compound has the chance to change to respect women's rights more, instead of reacting against unjust law that takes away infants because young post-pubescent women are having babies.
post #71 of 83
Personally, I have no problem with the Stepford wives. If they are so weak and have so little self esteen that they want to continue in a relationship with their "spiritual husband" and 20 "sister-wives" so be it.

BUT, the children should not have to suffer these awful men's controlling behavior and "breaking" methods. I have to admit to some, not so nice, feelings towards these men, they are putting themselves up as God and not a nice God at that.
post #72 of 83
That's not entirely fair to the wives. The effects of lifelong conditioning cannot be overestimated. We hear of abducted kids bonding with their kidnappers, and while its easy to say that you or me could never be so weak and indoctrinated into the cult, until it happens to us we have no way of knowing.
Being removed from the cult must have been a huge shock to all of them, and so they will cling to what they know.
I certainly don't agree with their lifestyles or how they have looked after their children. I wish more of them had shown backbone. But I do think I am so lucky not to be in their shoes.
post #73 of 83
Something else to consider. I read something a while ago that was said by the lady whose testimony got Jeffs sent to prision. She said that from what all she overheard, this compound in Texas is full of Jeffs most hard-core faithful. I guess they were being harrassed a lot in AZ and Jeffs was complaining how he thought alot of the men weren't faithful enough or something. So he built the compound in Texas and personally hand-picked the men that would go there. So it is like a super-colony or something. I wish I could find the article where she was interviewed and said that. But I'm pretty sure that was what she said.
post #74 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telynn View Post
Something else to consider. I read something a while ago that was said by the lady whose testimony got Jeffs sent to prision. She said that from what all she overheard, this compound in Texas is full of Jeffs most hard-core faithful. I guess they were being harrassed a lot in AZ and Jeffs was complaining how he thought alot of the men weren't faithful enough or something. So he built the compound in Texas and personally hand-picked the men that would go there. So it is like a super-colony or something. I wish I could find the article where she was interviewed and said that. But I'm pretty sure that was what she said.
Deseret magazine had articles printed in 2000 about the same thing.
I am just glad that the TX authorities are willing to protect those children and their brainwashed mothers. My mother was telling me about a woman who is disowning the sect who appeared on TV, describing how her "spiritual husband" (if these guys have only one legal wife, then they are not guilty of bigamy) "broke-in" her baby boy by beating him till he couldn't cry anymore, then holding him under cold running water, and repeating the process. The unfortunate mother was forced to watch and not interfere under the threats of the other wives in the family
post #75 of 83
catsknowme, the television clip you're talking about is linked and discussed above.

I think it's really important to separate out individual abusive men from the entire religious group. People who waterboard babies should go to jail. Not every member of this sect waterboards babies. Waterboarding babies is not a tenent of this sect. Just because some Lutheran (to randomly choose a religion) fathers beat their children, or even kill them (it does happen), does not mean that all Lutheran babies should be taken away from their parents.

I personally abhor the idea of separate gender roles, women being subservient and existing only for the purpose of raising children. Just because I disagree with the values of the FLDS doesn't mean I think that they should be preventing from having and raising children with their values.

Here is the basic issue; we can prevent child abuse and respect the social and religious values of the FLDS. We don't have to decide if protecting religion or protecting children is more important (although protecting children is more important). We can do both. Required scheduled private interviews with all people on the compound would work. The Texas department of children and families (or whatever it's called) decided instead to persecute the FLDS for having non-mainstream values.

This same department could choose to remove all of the children from an intergenerational nude colony (which had a leader now in jail, had some affliated families with past sexual and child abuse, and had a non-traced phone call describing abuse), and it would be the same kind of thing.

The department treated the whole compound as one family; if there is suspected child abuse, all of the children must go. That doesn't make sense. It does make sense to treat each set of one father, many wives, and lots of children as one household. It does not make sense to treat the whole compound as one household. It only makes sense if you are trying to destroy the compound instead of trying to save the children.

I certainly wouldn't mind if the entire FLDS religion died, right now. I just don't think the Texas government should try to kill it.
post #76 of 83
Quote:
The department treated the whole compound as one family; if there is suspected child abuse, all of the children must go. That doesn't make sense. It does make sense to treat each set of one father, many wives, and lots of children as one household. It does not make sense to treat the whole compound as one household. It only makes sense if you are trying to destroy the compound instead of trying to save the children.
I think if it was just one man in the compound that, for example, beat his children then you would have a point. The reason they threated it has everyone as one family is because they ALL adhere to this thinking. Also the problem of not being able to figure out who the parents of the children are. The children themselves don't even know!
post #77 of 83
I think it is fair to treat one man and all his wives and kids as one household.
They ARE one household. The children look on all the children of their household as their brothers and sisters. Heck, I don't think the kids even know who their Bio Mom is half the time.

I have had contact with a polygamist and his wives. He used to come to where I work and buy doors, he was in construction. He lived in the Colorado City/Hilldale area. He would bring his wives and some of the kiddo's to when he came to pick up doors, etc.

It was in the middle of freaking summer and we have HOT summers here.
That creep rarely, very rarely would allow the women to come in out of the heat. He made them sit out in the back of his pick-up truck while he came in.
The few times the women came in, they opened the door for him and he entered first.

The guy was a creep, I had to wait on him a few times and he had this attitude and his demeanor even towards me that screamed, "you are a woman and therefore beneath me"

He ended up stiffing our company for about $20,000.00

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008...ruction-firms/
post #78 of 83
Thread Starter 
The FLDS are the ones who try to confuse the "enemy" by keeping their family lines secret. And men even have their wives taken away and given to more deserving men of the sect. Sorry, the smoke screens aren't working - bottom line is that just because they have made things confusing, which has worked out well in UT, since the authorities there do deal with things on a "case by case" basis, it just didn't work with Texas.
Further aggravating is the fact that the FLDS sects in the states of AZ, UT & TX survive on our tax dollars because they qualify for public aid so readily. And they confuse the parentage of their children to assist the men in evading paying child support back to the welfare departments. So, our government is their enemy, yet they don't say "no" to the free hand-outs We subsidize their breeding program. and yet, how can the government say "no" to the children who need the foodstamps and the cash aid In that regard, the FLDS sects have the rest of the American taxpayers "in a grip"..
post #79 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I think it is fair to treat one man and all his wives and kids as one household.
They ARE one household.
We agree on that.

I could be wrong, but since the Yearning For Zion compound in Texas was for the privledged of the FLDS, I'm pretty sure that means it was also for the financially privledged; I don't think they were taking government handouts for single mothers that are acutally in "spiritual" polygamous marries. That is fraud, of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telynn
I think if it was just one man in the compound that, for example, beat his children then you would have a point. The reason they threated it has everyone as one family is because they ALL adhere to this thinking. Also the problem of not being able to figure out who the parents of the children are. The children themselves don't even know!
I think it would be fairly straightforward to treat as a household each huge house that has lots of people living in it, no matter the exact genetic relationships between people in that house.

We need to define what we mean by "this" thinking.

Does the whole compound think that multiple women should be able to marry one man? Yes.

Does the whole compound think that premartial sex and homosexual sex are both horrendous affronts to God? Yes.

Does the whole compound think that women should take care of the home and children and men should earn money for the home? Yes.

Does the whole compound think that women who just got their first period should be married? No.

Does the whole compound think that women should be married when they are mature and ready, which could be under 18? Yes.

Does the whole compound define "mature" differently than most people in America do? Yes. I had some European folks shocked (shocked!) that I was married at the tender age of 24. Definitions of ages of maturity vary widely between cultures.

Does the whole compound think that children should be abused so that they fear their fathers? No.

Does the whole compound think that the ideal plural marriage involves wives ratting each other out and fighting for dominance and such? Absolutely not.

From my ideas of what the FLDS as a group think, I don't think their children should be taken away from them. Regular escape routes provided? Yes. Regular reminders to the leaders of the laws of Texas and clear declarations that "spiritual marriage" won't take care of the age part? Yes. Children all taken away? No.

Utah as a whole has decided that trying to take away and raise the children of polygamist sects and individuals puts a huge burden on the state while not providing any benefits to the children taken away. Texas needs to learn this, too.
post #80 of 83
I have been reading some interesting articles on the website of the SLC Tribune also about this.

I will be very interested to find out the truth regarding the governmental assistance these people receive. To me that would be a huge reason for all the secrecy.
post #81 of 83
While I agree that many young girls think of sex and such well before 18, and even partake in such, there's a big difference in her choosing to do so with the man of her choice and being forced to marry some guy decades older than her. Yes, teenage girls do get pregnant. However, usually they get pregnant by boys around the same age. Not by men 30+ years older. Therein lies the abuse of power. Not that the girls had sex or got pregnant, but that they had no choice in the matter.
post #82 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
While I agree that many young girls think of sex and such well before 18, and even partake in such, there's a big difference in her choosing to do so with the man of her choice and being forced to marry some guy decades older than her. Yes, teenage girls do get pregnant. However, usually they get pregnant by boys around the same age. Not by men 30+ years older. Therein lies the abuse of power. Not that the girls had sex or got pregnant, but that they had no choice in the matter.

That is EXACTLY the point - a girl's body belongs to her, not to the church or to her parents. Yes, it's okay for the parents to try to keep her in line because in her mind, she is still legally a child, but that sect was using those little girls for breeding, as if they were heifers!!
post #83 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enuja View Post
.

Does the whole compound think that women who just got their first period should be married? No.
I have yet to see anything that tells that this idea isn't something they all beleve, that it isn't something they are taught. So I do think the whole compound think this way.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Which is greater - religion or protecting children from sex abuse?