An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
The Controversy Over Marrying Girls
The thought-provoking Dean Esmay writes:
Whoops. I guess there’s more than a “scintilla” of evidence of what would legally constitute child abuse amongst these cultists, as some have suggested does not exist. Nope, there’s evidence of widespread child abuse (or what would be legally defined as child abuse, anyway) in this cult as a general everyday practice, which is why authorities moved on them in the first place.
This all raises a number of philosophical problems that polygamy presents to modern society.
Read it all…
8 Responses to “The Controversy Over Marrying Girls”
It's complex and difficult, yes. But it's made more complex and difficult when a basic principle is allowed to become a sacred cow that can't be touched under any circumstances.
All the principles of our society and all our freedoms have to be brought into balance, since one freedom can walk all over another if allowed to.
Giving freedom of religon a priori supremacy is what leads to this kind of mess, aided and abetted by the fashionable tendency to believe that if the government does it, then it must be bad.
The media got it all wrong from the beginning gullibility about an anonymous phone call to the latest hand wringing over claims of overreach by authorities.
It's a complex story,.Why not report it as such? Why stop with the scintillating headline of the day?
Is it because doing a little research and actual thinking is too much trouble?
amen again, dear runasim
defensive octopii everywhere in the clearer waters, it seems
dr.e
not complex, and not a freedom of religion issue
so if my religion tells me that on the full moon i am to sacrifice a child to baal, i should be allowed to?
this religion isnt about protecting children from the dangers of waiting for marriage…its about institutionalizing pedophilia….plain and simple
were they marrying 13 year olds to 13 year olds? were the boys told to marry as soon as they hit puberty? nope…only the girls…and they were sent to older men
and the entire lot of them forfieted their rights to be parents when they sat back, watched this happen over and over again and did nothing
the government didnt over reach…in fact, they too sat back for years, knowing full well what was occuring
OK, suppose their is strong evidence, including first-hand allegations, that a Catholic priest is molesting one or more children, and has been for some time. Furthermore, multiple priests appear to be involved in similar activities, and there is some evidence of a cover-up occurring at higher levels as well.
This allegations and charges have floated in the public domain for some time, and some of the priests, including the Parish priest, have been arrested, tried and convicted already. Meanwhile, there are indications that the problems may still be ongoing, and multiple media outlets such as 60 Minutes have done exposes on the problem.
However, many of the parishioners still do not leave the parish, and even express support for their priesthood.
Finally, an anonymous call is made to Texas CPS, stating that a priest in that parish is about to molest some additional children.
So, CPS raids every house of every parishioner, and takes all their children in a protective action to make sure they do not get molested.
How many here would support Texas CPS actions then?
I am all for protecting children who can specifically be shown to be in danger, but that simply isn't the case here. This in fact seem much more like the reactions back in the days of the McMartin pre-school abuse and devil-worship bullshit. They were 'just protecting the children', but instead just destroyed many innocent lives, children and adults.
Many here have complained about the loss of rights under Bush, but now some of you, at least, seem to think that this was the correct course of action, and so obviously are willing to give up significant amounts of privacy, constitutional rights, and due process after all.
It is like the old Churchill joke -
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for $1,000,000?
Lady: I might indeed, Mr Churchill.
Churchill: Then sleep with me for $20.
Lady: Mr. Churchill! What type of woman do you think I am?
Churchill: Madam, I thought we had already ascertained that, and were now simply haggling over price.
AR.
It's a phantastic utopian daydream to talk about rights in an absolute sense.. Rights have to be balanced against each other, and one man's rights have to be balanced against another's when they overlap or contradict each other.. Rights as a whole have to be balanced against responsibilities. Individual rights and responsibilities have to be balanced against the state's' rights and responsibilities. That's the basis for a society, as opposed to unconnected individuals, each living on his private island.
Put in one word, it's called civilization. When a balance is sought, it's called democracy.
Should we defend the rights of adults to kill the children of Jonestown or should we rue the fact that authorities couldn't/didn't step on some rights to intervene?.
We are dealing with a cult here, with a cult mentality, groomed to hide, obfuscate and falsify facts, anything to protect the leader(s). . These are not members of the PTA guarding their secret recipe for cakes at a bake sale.
Just ascertaining parentage has proven to be a monumental task.
If there is a better way to collect evdence and ascertain which adult male is responsible for which children, then I will applaud that better way.
In the meantime, the last place one could expect to get reliable information from the chidlren is in the cult's home setting, with the adults present and participating.and managing what is said and done.
It is tragic for the children to be separated from their mothers. That's why this case is complicated. It is also complicated because for too long, American soicety has been so deferentialt to the rights of this cult''s members.
In looking for a balance, it isn't the children's rights that should be sacrificed, nor the responsibilities of the cult adults overlooked for the sake of some abstract utopian dream about absolute rights.
,
I never defended rights to those who are indeed abusing (or killing), and don't pretend I was. How do you justify the removal from parents of children who were in no immediate risk?
For CPS to claim the entire compound is a 'household' is exactly analogous to my example. You cannot simple take everyone's children who is a member of social (or religious) group without specific information. Only individual children which can be shown to be in immediate risk can be summarily removed without a hearing.
They took all the boys, 1 -10 year old girls, girls that were over-age, etc. It was an absolutely abuse of authority.
The best way can express it is that in fact the Texas Supreme Court was unanimous that CPS has taken children without due process that they had no right to. The only conflict was the 3 Justices that thought pubescent aged girls did fit into an 'immediate risk' category, and should not be returned.
And as a resident of Texas, I can promise you that we have one of the most conservative Supreme Courts in the country, and Government has to be WAY over the line before they get rebuked by the Court. Even then, the votes tend to be very close, unlike this time.
Finally, ask yourself, are you prepared to allow a neighbor or an acquaintance who is harboring a grudge against you the almost absolute ability to call anonymously, have your children taken from you, placed into foster care, all without any hearing to defend yourself?
” How do you justify the removal from parents of children who were in no immediate risk?”"
How did you determine which children were in danger and which not?
How can anyone, when, as I said, secrecy, obfuscaton and outright lies are at the heart of how the cult operates? Tell me how?
In response to your personal question about how I would feel, , the marriage,, births and deaths in my like are a matter of public record. If I went crazy, joined a cult or for some other reason started to endanger my family members, I hope agaisnt hope that someone would tread on my rights in order to protect them.
You keep talking as if this was just a normal group of citizens mindng theri own business. It's not.
The latest is that they are all to be releaed. So, you'll be happy to know that the next 13 yearold girl in that group forced into marraige and sex, then to bear a child, will have satisfied your high standards for observing rights.
What the heck, the consequences have no bearing, right? It's just another girl that you don't know.
You seem to be being purposely dense. I have clearly talked about the removal of the male children, girls ten and under, etc. I agree that there may be justification for the older girls (13+), although even there I am uncomfortable. However, as they truly are 'at risk', a much much stronger argument can be made.
Wheat is your defense for removing the children who were not at immediate risk with no hearing? The boys and younger girls were in no immediate risk. So, there is no case for removing the boys, and ample time to hold hearings for the younger girls.
Again, if you are old enough, think back on the McMartin preschool case. EVERYONE knew SOMETHING had to of happened. There was no question of their guilt, and why were we wasting our time with the courts.
Distasteful events, particularly surrounding children, tend to bring out the mob mentality. I would rather we indeed take immediate action when truly warranted, but only then.
Has it occurred to you that as this winds its way through the legal system and court of public opinion, that what could happen is a weakening of the laws that allow agencies like CPS to act when they truly need to?
Unintended consequences and the road to hell.