Comments on: The raid

By: Douglas

Douglas — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 06:48:56 +0000

I wait with baited breath to see how our Gov’t will justify the wholesale trampling of these American’s constitutional right. One would think all people in our county have freedom of association, to worship as they deem appropriate, to be free of unlawful siezure, to be free of unlawful search, and to raise their children, within reason, as they deem proper. But down in Texas, it appears that an anonomous complaint, involving a specific victim and a specific perpetrator (located in another state) justify invading all citizens’ homes, removal of not the victim but everyone else, including “victims” of the opposite sex (all the minor boys), striping all parents holding similar beliefs (as evidenced by their association together) of their parental rights with absolutely no specific allegations against the specific individuals of misconduct or parental unfitness. What if – just imagine – that one of the locals called in that complaint, impersonating the victim.
I personally feel that this religious group is a bunch of nuts, but it is the exercise of their constitutional rights to worship and associate together that leads me to feels they are nutty. Most southern baptists think unitarians are nuts, not completely without cause.
Of course, no one has the right to engage in sexual activity with a person under the state-law age of consent. What offends me is the fact that one community member’s alleged crime (ok – imagine the perpetrator was living there instead of outside of Texas) can justify trampling all community members rights. If several hundred people live there, and given our Country’s 2-3% incarceration rate, its hard to imagine how someone is not commiting a felony there on a right regular basis. If one was caught with dope, thats no reason to search every community member’s home, detain all members, take away all members children, and tear everyone’s families apart.
Now, after days of “interviews” with the parents, little promises of lieniency for “cooperation”, I will be really suprised if the Gov’t cannot dig up some evidence and testimony of a crime – human nature just has not changed that much since the Salem witch trials.
If my home was to be searched, I was subjected to physical restraint and my child taken away, based on what some other identified person did, I would be more than slightly offended. The fact that the victim cannot be found and law breaker was known to be out of state really does not change the fact that these rights are trampled solely due to exercise of freedom of association and religious expression.
Lets imagine the government’s proof in a hearing aimed at taking away one of these American’s parental rights – ie – that the parent lived there with child, worshiped there, and, at best, that their religious beliefs condone polygamy or underage marriage. And knowing that this vague proof (most of which is a protected constitutional freedom), is about the best the prosecutor will have to work with, I am shocked that a judge or prosecutor would abandon their own vows to defend our constitution in regard to the majority of these Americans based upon allegations of misconduct involving a specific victem and specific perpetrator. Its not that problem faced with some vague allegation of a crime – the problems is that its so specific and related to the others residents based solely (or largly) upon their exercise of freedom of association and religion.
Woe unto the powers that be if they can’t put together some factually specific allegations against each of these Americans, as opposed to guilt by association.
Faith healers are worse nuts, putting their children in real danger. I am sure some of these residents of this commune are guilty of rape, statutory or forcible. Probably have some old draft dodgers, income tax cheaters, welfare frauds, etc, just like in a like-sized population of mainstream Americans. Children die every day in our country as a result of enforement of their worthless parents constituional rights, people die in states which do not require helmits for motorcycles. Cigarettes are legal, albeit deadly. Millions of Americans have given life or limb defending our Constition in past wars. With no Constitional rights or protections our Country would be a safer place for all of us (like the UK without gun rights). The deterioration of our rights begins with crys of “save the children” and ends with the crime of association and non-mainstream religious beliefs or practices.

By: queuno

queuno — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 03:05:20 +0000

Isn’t modern revelation great, that leaders can correct oversights or misunderstandings?

The Church ***as an institution*** has been pretty outspoken about abuse for well over a decade, at least. I didn’t pay much attention to it before 1992 or 1993 or so, when I had a girlfriend who had been abused as a child and was pretty open about how progressive and proactive her leadership had been in the 1980s.

By: Ben There

Ben There — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:27:24 +0000

Anne,

The solution to rooting out the abuse is to allow the communities to not have to be so secretive. When these people can live openly, without fear of prosecution based on who they have sex with (just like the rest of the world can do!), you will see that abuse will not be able to hide as easily, at least no more easily than in the outside world. But forcing these people into secrecy is what causes the problem.

Decriminalize polygamy. Let people live their lives how they see fit. We already let people of the world have sex and create children with whomever they want, with no penalty. Why make it illegal just because some people actually want to settle down with their wives and children and have a family? It makes no sense.

This is the only truly compassionate, and truly American way to deal with the situation.

Secrecy breeds trouble, and unfortunately this raid is going to cause even more trouble for the next generation, as once again, children will be scarred for life due to being pried from their families and placed in strangers’ homes. When they get out, and go back to the life they knew, they will be even more determined to avoid mainstream society, which once again screwed them over.

By: Ben There

Ben There — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:54:52 +0000

Kathryn,

Your account gave me a big lump in my throat, as I considered what you went through, and how the LDS leaders encouraged you to submit to such a situation. Thank God you were not so blind as to “follow the brethren” just because they say you should. I am so happy that you have a normal life now.

Many LDS can’t break out of the “follow the brethren” mind-trap.

By: annegb

annegb — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:41:01 +0000

#22 I agree with you, abuse is everywhere. I’m sure that a situation where a group people live at a remove like the FLDS, it’s allowed to flourish. But I don’t think any peoples have a monopoly on abuse.

This morning, Carolyn Jessop described a terrible practice used on babies that sounded similar to water boarding. Boy.

Frankly, I applaud the authorities of Texas. I wish those of Utah and Arizona had the same backbone.

Although, on the other hand, there are many enclaves of polygamy outside Colorado City. For instance, in Fifetown subdivision, which is in my ward, there are many polygamist families who home school and live together in houses and trailers. I’ve seen some of the kids from those homes and they look pretty sad.

Maybe in the end, it’s a sign of the times and the world is full of awful situations.

By: Jota G

Jota G — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:44:11 +0000

Kathryn,

The experience you relate is terrible. It confounds me that your bishop would take that position. It was wrong and a grievous mistake. Around the same timeframe you had your experience, my family sheltered a family who was fleeing an abusive situation. I’m glad you are now in a better situation.

“I can not understand how a man can be unkind to any woman, much less to the wife of his bosom, and the mother of his children, and I am told that there are those who are absolutely brutal, but they are unworthy the name of men.” Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine.

By: Kathryn

Kathryn — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 03:44:26 +0000

In my experience, the current LDS church condemnation of marital abuse is a recent phenomenon.

I stopped going to mainstream LDS church about 20 years ago when I called my bishop after my (now ex)husband was just barely stopped by the police from murdering me, and asked him to please help me find a place to stay because my (ex)husband attacked me again after the police left and I had escaped out the back barefoot and without my purse, and I needed a safe place to stay. I explained that I just needed someone’s couch to sleep on or even a familyroom floor and a blanket, until I got my paycheck in 3 days and could get a place myself. My bishop told me that if my husband was being violent, it must be because I was challenging his authority over me and failing to properly submit myself to his dominion. I told my bishop that I was three months pregnant and that I was afraid my (ex)husband would kill me and my unborn baby. The bishop told me I was being stubborn and that there were shelters for “women like you” then he hung up on me.

Happily, the Holy Ghost guided me to the personal revelation that it was not Heavenly Father’s will that I permit myself and my unborn baby to be murdered by my (ex)husband. I am now happily married to a kind, non-Mormon man who is a fantastic father to all of our children as well as a loving husband who does not believe in subjugating his wife. Ironically, I am probably more obedient to him than I ever was to my scary evil exhusband, because I love my husband so much and want to make him happy!

By: Ben There

Ben There — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:44:37 +0000

Jota,

Ditto. Enjoy your fantasy world.

By: Ben There

Ben There — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:43:54 +0000

Is abuse “rampant”?

I will pretend this is a Sacrament talk, and now define the word under consideration:

Removing the defintions that apply to animals, and considering those applicable to our situation, the word rampant generally means: “Ascending; climbing; rank in growth”.

I suspect that if an issue like physical and sexual abuse is now being openly discussed in Conference, and Ensign articles are being written, and special publications are being printed and distributed on these topics, that the Church leadership clearly feels like the problem is ascending or climbing, if not in raw numbers then at least in visibility.

Also…a correction to my prior post: I meant “no MORE immune”, not “no less immune”.

Apologies.

By: Jota G

Jota G — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:25:16 +0000

Ben There,

If you don’t see the difference, there’s no point in my responding further.