CNN commentary on Texas taking custody of the children of that sect....

by CaptainSchmideo 48 Replies latest jw friends

  • avishai

    Where the hell are the fathers? Why is it just the women talking to the cameras? Wussies...

  • OnTheWayOut

    The mothers are part of the problem here. They subscribe to the sect's beliefs. Or maybe they are brainwashed, or victims themselves. But none of that really matters.

    What matters is protecting these children, even if that means protecting them from their own mothers.

    I have been following the story. Anything "cult" makes my wife uneasy. She catches a bit of the
    news that children were taken from their mothers and made some kind of face.

    OTWO: Don't you think they need to protect the children first and foremost?

    Mrs OTWO: If they pulled them out of the place, the men can't harm their children. Let their
    mothers be with them.

    OTWO: The mothers might be a huge part of the problem. They may have been victims of the
    same abuse, and think it is okay. They can try to persuade their children to be uncooperative
    with the authorities so that none of their "good" men get in trouble.

    Mrs. OTWO: I suppose. Couldn't they let their children see their mothers during supervised time?

    OTWO: That might be reasonable, but these mothers are going to likely spend the whole time
    influencing their children. They might constantly barrage them with "The leaders are right. The
    outsiders are evil. Don't cooperate. Lie for Mommy or Daddy." They might be able to trigger
    fears in the children of displeasing God if they help worldly authorities. They might cause some
    children to commit suicide.

    Mrs. OTWO: I hadn't thought about the suicide part. Maybe they should stay separated until they
    sort it out.

    (Mrs. OTWO never really caught on to how I was really cracking down on JW's and their ways that
    are similar. )

  • sammielee24

    I guess I'm looking farther on this issue.

    It's all about rights.

    First - I haven't heard of one single charge being laid against any mother for abuse of their child, therefore, by allowing the removal of small children from their parents because a state feels like it without proof and conviction, is in itself criminal. If one state decides that they can remove your child because they don't like your religion or your home, not because they can prove any abuse, then that same state can look at anyone and at any time surround your house and order you to hand over your kids.

    Second - polygamy is just a word. We all know there is no legal basis as these people haven't gone to the country courthouse and married each other so its just a spiritual union. This means that technically, and if I were a lawyer defending the mothers I would use this defense, that these are single parents. Single parents regardless of where they live are entitled to welfare and other benefits. Who dictates where a single parent is allowed to live? If you have a family of 10 siblings and they all want to live in the same compound, don't you have a right to do that? If we are removing kids because we object to where they live or the fact they live with a bunch of others that we think is abnormal, then there are probably 100 million single parents we might be rounding up as unfit and removing their kids from them.

    Third - we have no charges. We hear media spin and outrage but until someone is charged and their is proof of criminal activity, it's all just gossip and inference. The state with armed forces removed these women and kids from their home and did not advise them of their rights - of any rights. They violated their privacy. They have subjected the woman and kids both to mental, emotional and physical abuse themselves without any charges yet being laid. They removed (apparently) many young girls and made them take pregnancy tests. They confiscated computers and paperwork without charges.

    I don't agree with anyone abusing any kid but until I hear people being charged, my concern is that this state led invasion is a massive violaiton of rights. If they take your kids because they 'think' they might be harmed, then every JW, every Scientologist, every single religion outside the main, is up for grounds. Tom Cruise's kids are home schooled, they are raised in Scientologist residences and with Scientologist monitors, isolated, members hand over their paychecks to remain in good standing - one could conclude that all those kids and all those residences should be invaded. JW's who homeschool their kids - who believe in isolation and poverty for their members - who refuse their kids blood transfusions - perhaps all of those families should be invaded because we 'think' they are harming their kids. This is so much bigger than one issue - if a guy has raped a woman, if he is a pedophile - then go after him. Some Witnesses have panic attacks and suffer extreme mental issues when they are forced to go into the 'world'......these are young kids who are being forced to do the same thing, forced away from their do we justify that without cause?

    There are women out here that have 3 kids by 3 different men. The fathers are not present and don't contribute anything. The mother is a single parent on welfare. She lives in a subsidized apartment, uses food stamps and part of her money goes on a bar tab. Her kids are clean but mom still dates and might even have a baby with man number 4. These single mothers, just like the FLDS single mothers, should be scared because if we decide we are fed up with their lifestyle, we will take their kids as well.

    It all doesn't jive with me yet. Maybe if they start laying some charges based on evidence it will be different. Until they do I'm not convinced that the right thing has been done - I want charges and proof of criminal activity and those people punished but I'm not sure that ripping little babies, handicapped kids and youngsters from their mothers is the right of the state for no reason. sammieswife.

  • journey-on

    This is going to be a tough case to crack. It will take some time for a thorough investigation, but it has to be done.

    First and foremost, those children need to be protected from further abuse. Sammieswife has made some excellent points to ponder.

    However, pedophilia is wrong, no matter how you look at it. The use of brainwashing techniques and mind

    control techniques to accept a leader's interpretation of "biblical doctrine" does not condone the fact

    that young girls (11 -16-year-olds are CHILDREN) are being willingly presented by mothers to older men under the auspices of

    religious freedom. Their mothers, however, were raised just like them, so to what extent do you hold those mothers accountable for what

    is happening to their own daughters?

    Nevertheless, there is a criminal element that cannot be ignored. I watched the interview with some of the mothers and they were scarily

    like Stepford wives. Methods of mind controlling indoctrination by leaders of this group and other cult-like groups should be investigated. That

    is the core of the problem right there, imo.

    It's all about rights.

    Indeed it is......the right of a child to be free from abusive parents and abusive religious dogma that condones the taking of their innocence.

    Let the investigation reveal all the facts, including the welfare fraud. We will all be watching this one closely.

  • sammielee24
    pedophilia is wrong, no matter how you look at it

    I don't argue that at all and if these people are proved to have engaged in it, then they must be punished. The problem I have is that there have been no charges laid on anyone and my question remains - since when in the USA is it alright to come into your home under armed forces and remove your children without any reason. These women stated that they repeatedly asked why this was happening and were given no answer. Again, to me it lines up against any single mother out there. There are kids being exposed to men continually when a single mother dates on and off over the course of a kids lifetime. I have a sister who has been married once, divorced and had 2 kids by her husband. After divorcing, she dated and had a number of long term relationships with men - lived with 2 of them. Her kids turned out fine but does that make her lifestyle and less explosive than the FLDS? Does it really make it any different - take the woman off the compound, set them up on dates they are still single parents.

    Methods of mind controlling indoctrination by leaders of this group and other cult-like groups should be investigated. That

    is the core of the problem right there, imo.

    This is the crux of it all as far as I'm concerned. The isolationist tendancies of all cults that masquerade as religion should be investigated because it is this isolation including home schooling, that increases the control of the cult leaders on it's members. Indeed this will be a complex case and while not a fan of the FLDS, I am following the legalities closely because I believe this will have a bearing on the rights and activities of all religions and people in the USA.


  • carla

    We in the US do not allow Sharia Law to be carried out in the name of freedom of religion we cannot allow church sanctioned pedophilia to be carried out in the name of religion either. Reports have mentioned a16 year old girl on her 4th pregnancy, if you cannot see that as pedophilia I don't even know what to say!

    As for Tom Cruises children being taken away from him? I think that would be a good idea personally. In reading the ex jw and sometimes ex Mormon boards and what all of you have had to deal with and still deal with on a daily basis I can't honestly say I would have a problem with kids being protected from mental, physical, emotional and spiritual tortures. A persons rights ends in my book when they are destroying a human being. As in jw's and other cults the children have no rights. Yes, look at all cases individually when a compound is not involved, if a compound is involved I believe the courts look at it as a presumption of multiple abuses going on. In the Texas case these kids don't even know who their mothers or father are so who are they actually being taken from? a group.

  • sammielee24
    Reports have mentioned a16 year old girl on her 4th pregnancy, if you cannot see that as pedophilia I don't even know what to say!

    This is what you heard - has anyone been charged. You aren't hearing what I am trying to say - abusers need to be punished but up to this point, there have been NO charges laid. If there was a 16 year old on her 4th pregnancy in custody now then wouldn't they have rounded up every man on the compound and forced them to take DNA tests to ferret out the father? That I would have no problem with. The problem I have is that there haven't been any charges laid against anyone for anything so your accusation of pedophilia until proven is nothing more than speculation. They've shown a picture all week of the guy they say is the abuser of the 16 year old that made the anonymous call - I figured they would have pulled him in for questioning and had him in custody by now but they don't. Why? I'm all for punishment of abusers but I haven't heard any charges yet.

    In the Texas case these kids don't even know who their mothers or father are so who are they actually being taken from? a group.

    Well - if you had asked me at 3 years old what my parents names were I couldn't have told you. I didn't know my fathers real name until I was a teenager because I never heard anyone call him anything other than his nickname. Wasn't important to me. I grew up calling people aunt and uncle as a sign of respect and didn't realize until I was much older that these people weren't related to me by blood. They were part of the family. Didn't know my grandmother was in fact my fathers step mother until I was 30. The family was important - the titles weren't. I don't necessarily believe in the concept that I have heard this religion promotes ie; all mothers for all kids but my point is that depending on the age, a lot of kids wouldn't know their parents names or ages.


  • journey-on


    How many cases have been boggled because the groundwork of a thorough investigation was botched?

    I think this case is extremely complicated and convoluted and they are carefully and methodically working

    it out. They need to be careful about premature charges but I think they certainly had enough probable cause

    to do what has been done thus far.

    As a side note on your concerns for single moms: They should be extra careful. Look at the one in the news

    last night where a woman and her boyfriend put her two children in an industrial clothes drier at 160 deg. for

    a few minutes. Women who are divorced and dating all manner of men should be more than extra careful where

    their kids are concerned. They shouldn't be bringing every "Tom, Dick, and Harry" into their kids' environment and

    if they do, the risk is greater that one of those kids will experience something negative at some point. When it comes

    to kids, there can't be too many watchful eyes. Teachers, especially, should be on the lookout for signs of abuse.

  • carla

    This is not a matter of a small child not knowing their mothers name, they call the females by their names and are raised as a group, not bonded relationships as a normal mother/child relationship.

    I'm sure they will need DNA tests to figure out who the fathers are. Personally I believe that authorities who have seen girls who appear to be as young as 13 pregnant is 'proof' enough. I do not need two witnesses to these child rapes I can see the evidence by the offspring produced. There are a few who have escaped and are talking about the cult-ure of their society. One was being interviewed and said they often change your name, birthdate, and eventually don't even know who you are. But then maybe it is like the jw's and all ex's are just liars out to discredit and persecute those faithful the Prophet.

  • sammielee24

    Carla - perhaps you have inside knowledge of the child rape that occured inside the compound but I don't. I have to rely on evidence and proof of criminal activity to justify removal of children from their mothers. If you have proof that a child was raped regardless of the age of the abuser, then that should be taken to the authorities. What 'appears' to be is only conjecture. I am waiting for the facts and charges to come out before I condemn all these people. Warren Jeffs was guilty of rape and is now imprisoned and I'm glad of that. Any man guilty of the crime should be punished - if not one of the girls under 16 were found to be pregnant, what charges would you have applied to the anyone inside to justify the raid? Again - I don't like the lifestyle but do my rights of dislike trump their rights to live their life as they believe they should? If we answer yes to that question, then we also might believe that we have the right to trump anybody's life including specific acts such as gay adoption, surogate mothering and abortion.

    As a side note on your concerns for single moms: They should be extra careful

    Agreed. The point that I was making had more to do with a comparison of women living in the compound that are technically single mothers sleeping with different men (I think) vs single mothers on the outside sleeping with different men. I believe that most mothers are careful with the men they bring into their lives but every day we hear of another child abuse case (including the dryer abuse you mentioned) that occurs. I hope for the sake of those kids and mothers that the state does have it's ducks in a row - if not, the cost in actual dollars to the state will be enormous and bogged down in lawsuits for the next 20 years. No child should be abused but when I see the news flashing that the state wants to foster and adopt out those little kids even before those mothers have had a chance - well, it seems a little premature to me. The men offered to leave the compound entirely so the women and kis could go back and were denied - if there are no child abuse charges laid, then why would that not be an option in the end? Like I said - from a legal standpoint and a human rights standpoint, this is an interesting case. sammieswife.

Share this