I'm curious what thoughts you guys have as to the FLDS raid in Texas. Al Mohler finally addressed it today, and he's surprisingly the first Christian mouthpiece I've heard opine.
I'm conflicted because the group itself gives me such a "chill" and knowing how perverted their religion is, but from day one, it has struck me as being a larger indication of the State's views towards family, and religious & personal freedom. Mohler seems to agree. The thing that struck me the most was the language being used against the group. Listening to the sociologists testify in the case, I heard the same "buzz words" about the group that I have heard the far left academics and "social scientists" use against Christians (especially in the 80s) -- suggesting that the family unit is oppressive and that women can't really consent in such an authoritative environment (speaking of marital rape), etc.
Considering the teen pregnancy rate in the group is less than the average US teen pregnancy rate and that minors can legally marry with parental consent, do you believe the "so-far unfounded" anonymous tip of underage pregnancy justifies the wholesale roundup of a group like this? Separation of children from parents for DNA testing without any indication that any particular children have been abused, etc.?
What do you think about it?
FLDS Raid
-
_darin-houston
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
- Location: Houston, TX
I have not followed the story, so there may be much that is generally known but which I have not heard. I do think (from the little I have heard) that it is very wrong to separate children from their parents unless the children are physically or morally endangered.
I welcome any corrective information to fill me in, but it seems like over a hundred kids were taken from their parents to be placed in the foster care system, solely because there were some known cases of underaged girls, in the same religious community, marrying older men (possibly under duress?). If there is more to the story, feel free to inform me. If, however, it is as I described, then I would have the following thoughts:
1) Marriage to underaged girls is not necessarily immoral (many of the wives in the Bible, including Mary, were probably 13- or 14-years-old), though it may violate state laws. In some civilized countries (and some states) such marriages are legal if there is consent from the parents of the minors. While we might reasonably frown on the practice, it is difficult to argue that such marriages are intrinsically immoral or dangerous to the girls who are involved. It hardly seems a sufficient reason to traumatize hundreds of unaffected children and to disrupt scores of intact families over. If Texas state laws forbid the marriage of minors, even with parental consent, then those who were engaged in the practice should have known better and were willingly taking the risk of legal prosecution. They should be appropriately prosecuted as law-breakers, the rest of the children and their families should be left unmolested by the State. The criminal husbands should be required to live separately from their child brides until the girls are old enough legally to be married. After that point, the (now adult) girls should be given the right to decide whether to continue the relationships with their former husbands, without further harassment from the government.
2. Of course, I do not believe in polygamy. However, there is nothing in scripture that declares the practice to be immoral, and any objection to its practice generally (that is, apart from the standards upheld in the church) would be simply a question of compliance with state law. It seems hypocritical, to me, for the law to permit a man to have any number of mistresses, and even to commit adultery with other men's wives, without being criminally prosecuted, while the man who "honorably" marries multiple women, and remains committed to support them and to care for their children as his "extended" family must be treated as a criminal. Polygamy may well be a sub-Christian practice, but it should not be criminalized in any state that does not equally prosecute those who have mistresses. It is inconsistent, condemning the (comparatively) honorable man, and justifying the guilty man.
3. In our society, a man may legally marry and divorce as many women serially as he may wish. This makes him a serial polygamist. The only difference between such a man and a simultaneous polygamist is that the latter is honorable enough to continue supporting and loving his first wife after he has taken a second, while the former man abandons the first to take a second. Where is the moral sense in our legal system?
I welcome any corrective information to fill me in, but it seems like over a hundred kids were taken from their parents to be placed in the foster care system, solely because there were some known cases of underaged girls, in the same religious community, marrying older men (possibly under duress?). If there is more to the story, feel free to inform me. If, however, it is as I described, then I would have the following thoughts:
1) Marriage to underaged girls is not necessarily immoral (many of the wives in the Bible, including Mary, were probably 13- or 14-years-old), though it may violate state laws. In some civilized countries (and some states) such marriages are legal if there is consent from the parents of the minors. While we might reasonably frown on the practice, it is difficult to argue that such marriages are intrinsically immoral or dangerous to the girls who are involved. It hardly seems a sufficient reason to traumatize hundreds of unaffected children and to disrupt scores of intact families over. If Texas state laws forbid the marriage of minors, even with parental consent, then those who were engaged in the practice should have known better and were willingly taking the risk of legal prosecution. They should be appropriately prosecuted as law-breakers, the rest of the children and their families should be left unmolested by the State. The criminal husbands should be required to live separately from their child brides until the girls are old enough legally to be married. After that point, the (now adult) girls should be given the right to decide whether to continue the relationships with their former husbands, without further harassment from the government.
2. Of course, I do not believe in polygamy. However, there is nothing in scripture that declares the practice to be immoral, and any objection to its practice generally (that is, apart from the standards upheld in the church) would be simply a question of compliance with state law. It seems hypocritical, to me, for the law to permit a man to have any number of mistresses, and even to commit adultery with other men's wives, without being criminally prosecuted, while the man who "honorably" marries multiple women, and remains committed to support them and to care for their children as his "extended" family must be treated as a criminal. Polygamy may well be a sub-Christian practice, but it should not be criminalized in any state that does not equally prosecute those who have mistresses. It is inconsistent, condemning the (comparatively) honorable man, and justifying the guilty man.
3. In our society, a man may legally marry and divorce as many women serially as he may wish. This makes him a serial polygamist. The only difference between such a man and a simultaneous polygamist is that the latter is honorable enough to continue supporting and loving his first wife after he has taken a second, while the former man abandons the first to take a second. Where is the moral sense in our legal system?
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_darin-houston
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
- Location: Houston, TX
I would point out that it is legal in Texas for a minor to marry with parental consent.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Then the only crime is polygamy? Doesn't the Texas criminal justice system have any real criminals to pursue? They must be like the Maytag repair man!*
Steve
*For those on whom this cultural reference is lost, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maytag and do a page search on the word "metaphor."
Steve
*For those on whom this cultural reference is lost, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maytag and do a page search on the word "metaphor."
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Darin,
You may know better than me, but my understanding is that minors can be married with parental consent, down to age 16. Its not legal for minors under 16 to marry. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You may know better than me, but my understanding is that minors can be married with parental consent, down to age 16. Its not legal for minors under 16 to marry. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
God Bless
A quick summary of facts on the FLDS case.
Some facts, as I have been blogging furiously about it.
One, the real "Sarah" is "Rozita Swinton", a 33 year old black woman from Tennessee and Colorado Springs, CO and she is childless. Her being black is only significant because the FLDS have no black members, they are racist.
Texas is down to between 1-3 members of the community that may have been victims of "sexual abuse". These potential victims are uncooperative and are not naming potential sex partners. Only one is known to be pregnant. It is not even certain yet that she is a minor, she is saying she is not. There is no evidence that they have been engaged in illegal sexual relations. The basis for this factual assertion on my part is that if they fathers of the children that the underage girl or girls (maybe as many as 3) that are pregnant are less than three years older than they are, there is no crime. Additionally there is the possibility that they are legally married to the fathers of their children, thus there would be no crime.
Only three people have been charged with a violation of law in connection with the FLDS raid. Only one offense is a felony and it is a third degree felony at that. Two FLDS men and Rozita Swinton. None of the offenses involve sex or violence.
Sheriff Doran and the State of Texas knew before they went in that the charges were suspect.
It's been over three weeks and there has yet to be any crime uncovered nor is there evidence of a crime. If you think about it, based on what I've said previously in this post, the mere presence of a young girl who is pregnant is not evidence of a crime. At this point, that's all they have.
Hugh McBryde
One, the real "Sarah" is "Rozita Swinton", a 33 year old black woman from Tennessee and Colorado Springs, CO and she is childless. Her being black is only significant because the FLDS have no black members, they are racist.
Texas is down to between 1-3 members of the community that may have been victims of "sexual abuse". These potential victims are uncooperative and are not naming potential sex partners. Only one is known to be pregnant. It is not even certain yet that she is a minor, she is saying she is not. There is no evidence that they have been engaged in illegal sexual relations. The basis for this factual assertion on my part is that if they fathers of the children that the underage girl or girls (maybe as many as 3) that are pregnant are less than three years older than they are, there is no crime. Additionally there is the possibility that they are legally married to the fathers of their children, thus there would be no crime.
Only three people have been charged with a violation of law in connection with the FLDS raid. Only one offense is a felony and it is a third degree felony at that. Two FLDS men and Rozita Swinton. None of the offenses involve sex or violence.
Sheriff Doran and the State of Texas knew before they went in that the charges were suspect.
Found here. There is a lot more, it is not in a format on PDF that can be copied. To sum up, they talked to the male suspect and were given plenty of evidence both by him and Arizona law enforcement that virtually eliminated him as a suspect in the statutory rape of "Sarah Barlow" who we now know does not exist. Texas went in anyway. Fully armed with APC's and snipers."The face of the affidavit..reflects that affiant Long and Sheriff Doran had 'obtained a copy of a judgment [from] the Superior Court of the State of Arizona' reflecting that Dale Evans had been convicted and was currently under supervised probation in the State of Arizona."
It's been over three weeks and there has yet to be any crime uncovered nor is there evidence of a crime. If you think about it, based on what I've said previously in this post, the mere presence of a young girl who is pregnant is not evidence of a crime. At this point, that's all they have.
Hugh McBryde
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: