Excuse me while I go vomit.

When I get back, I hope to read that the guy who beats and “waterboards” infants gets the same sentence. As if.

And, if the woman was legally married to husband no. 1, and he left the compound, she marries husband no. 2 and she never divorced, in many states, all of her children would be legally husband no. 1’s, just because they were born during a marriage. (The Supreme Court held, a few decades ago, that the biological father of a child, who had cohabited with the child’s mother for at least a year before and after birth, and who had been told she was divorced, had NO constitutional right to visitation, etc., because she was still married, therefore the child was the legal child of her spouse, and bio. daddy had no constitutional right to establish paternity. I am not kidding.)

Could make things complicated. Wonder what will happen if a case like that goes back up to the Supreme Court because an ex-member wants to rescue all of his wife’s children.

Oh, and according to a book on the subject, discussed in that post Doctor Science linked to upthread at Orcinus, about 1/3 of the FLDS women she talked to were on anti-depressants, and many were threatened with mental health evaluations and incarceration in mental hospitals if they didn’t toe the line. Horrifying.

“Brainwashing,” as you so cutely term it, is most certainly abusive when it is used to curtail your 13th amendment rights.

If the allegations are shown to be baseless, the children will be returned to their parents and the compound. Because they were not removed for being FLDS, but because of credible abuse allegations.

Simply raising your child Muslim is not abusive. Giving your 13 y/o to be a rape bride to a Muslim pal would be. In the first situation, there’s no reason to intervene. In the second, you remove the 13 y/o and every other child living in the house.

And, as above, I have no problem with the ACLU. But just b/c they are there making sure the gov’t hasn’t overstepped its bounds doesn’t mean they are right or that they will prevail in a court of law. I really hope the authorities have all their Is dotted and Ts crossed, but if they don’t, go ACLU.

I’ve said approximately 5 times in my comments that it is, and he ignores away.

That’s what privilege is. The power to ignore realities and arguments that don’t fit with your worldview.

So thanks for the object lesson.

Only applies to the non-religious, probably.

I don’t care about the ACLU. Nothing they say will make a difference to how Texas carries out their investigation. The ACLU is sometimes well-informed about the issues they engage in, and sometimes they are just a bunch of shrill crackpots. Like you.

Glad to read your meandering election coverage. It is very informative and relevant to this post, as is every other piece of nonsense that has come out of your persona.

Try to focus on the real issue: rape, sexual abuse, emotional abuse by men *and women* who are raising these children. Try to put aside your fleeting memories of wanting your mommy (who I am sure was a better mother than these women).

There has been no evidence presented of systematic abuse of underage children. I do not object to the older girls being taken until this can be sorted out. I would have preferred to see the men rounded up. I am no legal expert, obviously.

This should have been done long ago in a more considered way. But you are putting underage children, at risk for nothing but brainwashing, in a terrifying situation. If you don’t understand that, then you neither have children nor remember being one.

And I am not being perverse. To me the personal is not political, it is personal. It must be in a multi-cultural society. I suspect that if the religion was Islam, and the charge was terrorism the people on this board would understand what the ACLU and I are saying.

I appreciate the opportunity to have been respectfully heard on this issue. I share your desire to see this rape factory smashed.

And as a Pennsylvanian I guess I should apologize for last night’s primary, but I’d rather be perverse.

Congratulations to Hillary. She helped Obama build a formidable machine in Pennsylvania. I live here in Delaware County, outside Philly. We have been deluged with ads, phone messages, and people knocking on the door.

Hillary used way more phone messages, Obama had more TV ads, and also Obama’s people came to the house at least twice, yesterday leaving a piece on the doorknob (we weren’t home) telling us where to vote, when you needed ID, etc. Very impressive. The same organization will now be built in North Carolina, then Indiana, and then in the fall, the two organizations will merge to kick McCain’s ass.

McCain watches and waits. This primary is helping Obama immensely. And perhaps more by Hillary immunizing him against Republican attacks in the fall by bringing up the stuff now about Wright, etc. that will seem stale in 6 months.

Either way, I refuse to devote any more time to his nonsense. Glad to know you will always stick up for the individual and their rights to keep their children at home in the face of sexual abuse allegations!

People who object to the state removing 6 year old children from their mothers are mocked for pretending such a child wouldn’t be happier in the care of a stranger. Foucault has pictures of children smiling.

epistemology, Foucault and I are not mocking any old mother who has her children removed. We’re not mocking the FLDS mothers who have their children removed.

We’re saying that legally the authorities are required to remove children from abusers. Once there is credible evidence of abuses, all the children are removed from the environment. If the FLDS all lived in separate houses, like on Big Love maybe not all of the children would have been removed, just the ones in houses with credible evidence of abuse.

But they don’t live in separate houses. They live in communal bunk houses. There’s nothing wrong with living in bunk houses, but when abuse happens there all the children must be removed.

Once the authorities have taken custody, they cannot just give it back willy nilly. They took custody for a reason–suspected abuse. They can only return the children to their legal guardian. If there were relatives offsite, they could quickly move to have them named guardians, but there aren’t b/c they all live in the same house.

They are lying about parentage and ages and apparently have lied about ssns and BCs to commit welfare fraud. The authorities have to figure out who is the parent, and if the parent is an abuser.

Foucault and I have belabored the legal realities long enough. If anyone is mocking the situation, it’s you,
epistemology, by stubbornly refusing to see that the actions of these parents are suspect and continuing to insist it’s simply religious persecution that caused the authorities to remove those kids.

No one here has claimed that foster care is better than loving parents. No one has claimed that foster care is a good thing for kids to go through. We’re just saying that it’s better for kids to be removed from an criminally abusive environment than to continue to be abused. We’re also saying that once in the system, there’s no way to send the children back unless you know to whom to send them.

But go ahead, twist it again so that the patriarchs are having their rights trampled and by preventing further abuse the kids are too. 13th Amendment is apparently optional in epistemology-world.