Texas Polygamist Raid: Unjustified Persecution?

  • News
  • Thread starter CaptainQuasar
  • Start date
In summary, there is suspicion surrounding the justification for taking 401 children away from their parents in a raid. There is no evidence that the children are being taken against their will or that the parents are polygamists. The authorities have yet to provide a justification for the raid, which has raised concern among Americans.
  • #71
mheslep said:
Yes that was my take; I wasn't even clear that these clowns (Jeffs) were really Mormons in the eyes of leaders of the CLDS. Just taking up the name doesn't make it so.
Well it kinda does - they are every bit as Mormon as Presbyterians are Christian. They are a break-away group.
As for their history, that's guilt by association w/ the past.
Again, since the group in question is a break-away group, it is clearly relevant. In fact, I could see a good argument for saying the breakaway group is more Mormon than the "official" church, since it is the official church that changed their policy and the breakaway group wanted to keep it the same.
Oh? I've havn't seen evidence of that. CDLS is very open about the repressive roles they assign to women, but I don't see where they sympathize with child marriage.

Polygamy perhaps. Child marriage, real child marriage ala Jeffs - I'm unaware of any collusion with the CDLS there.
One of the articles linked earlier talked about such sympathy. I'll go back later and figure out which one.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Art said:
lol split hairs! By anyone's definition a 15 year old is a child! And per the info supplied by BoBG under certain circumstances some states allow kids as young as 14 to marry.

In answer to your question The answer is yes and still is.
The other special circumstances about permission are non sequiturs as well (things like the fact that they typically have limits on the difference in age are conveniently ignored here) and the key word is permission. In the case we're discussing here, these kids are being forced.

What this cult is doing is not standard operating procedure in the US and afaik, never has been.
 
Last edited:
  • #73
Regarding sympathy for polygamy in Utah, a google finds lots of articles. Here's one from 2006: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209474,00.html

Here's an interesting site: http://www.pro-polygamy.com/

Note: A line is often drawn between polygamy and child marriage. The pro polygamy website has this as its slogan:
Freely-consenting, adult, non-abusive, marriage-committed
POLYGAMY
is the next civil rights battle.
But the fact of the matter is, they need that part in there because polygamy has been historically connected to child marriage. IMO, it is an enabler and it seems to me that Jeffs' fundamentalist cult exists for the purpose of pedophilia*.

I'd even extend it to say that the Mormon religion itself encourages (or used to, but the text of the book remains even if they no longer follow it) older men to marry much younger women:
The revelation, in part, held that, "If any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another ... then he is justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him."
http://www.childbrides.org/history_sanantonio_polygamy_stirred_anger.html

*[edit] By the strict definition, most of the girls in question were probably "sexually mature" and thus don't fit the definition for pedophilia, but at the very least, as this website puts it:
By today's definitions, when it comes to the pathology of pedophilia, Joseph Smith would probably not be considered a true pedophile. That doesn't mean however, that he wasn't a lecherous scumbag who would stop at nothing to bed any young woman who captured his fancy.
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon253.htm
But note also the age of Joe Smith's wives and the changes in age of menarche over the past 150 years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
All I can say is, being married to one woman is difficult enough. Why would one want to double the trouble? :)
 
  • #75
russ_watters said:
The other special circumstances about permission are non sequiturs as well (things like the fact that they typically have limits on the difference in age are conveniently ignored here)
What limits are imposed on age differences in marriage in the US? Do you have a link to support this claim?
russ_watters said:
and the key word is permission. In the case we're discussing here, these kids are being forced.
Allegedly! Or do you have proof??
 
  • #76
drankin said:
All I can say is, being married to one woman is difficult enough. Why would one want to double the trouble? :)
They get 5 to 10 for having several wives. I only have one wife, and I got life.
 
  • #77
Art said:
lol split hairs! By anyone's definition a 15 year old is a child! And per the info supplied by BoBG under certain circumstances some states allow kids as young as 14 to marry.

In answer to your question The answer is yes and still is.

That's taken a little out of context.

I'm sure you can find instances where a 40-year-old man was allowed to marry a teenager. I even know one instance where a high school swim coach married one of the high school girls on his team and her parents were proud of it - at least publically.

That's not the intent of allowing exceptions to the age of consent and someone like that high school coach was at least as likely to face charges of statutory rape as to be the son-in-law of proud parents (as it was, his teaching career was effectively finished even though no criminal charges were filed against him).

The intent is to take into the account the inevitable pregnancies that result from teens having sex with other teens.

There's a big difference between allowing for exceptions to the law and making something the preferred policy.

I have a few doubts as to how this group should be handled, but I don't have any doubts that this group is just plain wacko.
 
  • #78
BobG said:
That's taken a little out of context.

I'm sure you can find instances where a 40-year-old man was allowed to marry a teenager. I even know one instance where a high school swim coach married one of the high school girls on his team and her parents were proud of it - at least publically.

That's not the intent of allowing exceptions to the age of consent and someone like that high school coach was at least as likely to face charges of statutory rape as to be the son-in-law of proud parents (as it was, his teaching career was effectively finished even though no criminal charges were filed against him).

The intent is to take into the account the inevitable pregnancies that result from teens having sex with other teens.

There's a big difference between allowing for exceptions to the law and making something the preferred policy.

I have a few doubts as to how this group should be handled, but I don't have any doubts that this group is just plain wacko.
The point is US law does allow for the marriage of children and as far as I know with no age discrepancy stipulations. In the case of Hawaii there doesn't seem to be any requirement other than the parent's consent for a 15 year old child to get married.

Personally I think even if the marriage of a 14 year old is allowed because the girl made a serious error of judgment and became pregnant allowing her to marry so young simply compounds the error.
 
  • #79
Art, how do you say that the caller was "anonymous"? I thought she called 2 different places (the cops and a local shelter), and identified herself to both places. I have no idea how many of the "inmates" of this compound even have any identification documents. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that most women lacked proper identification.

Also, I believe what forced the police to remove all the children from the location was that they found many underage girls showing signs of pregnancy.
 
  • #80
There's a lot of discussion about "age of consent." The "consent" part of that phrase refers to consent to legal marriage. These aren't legal marriages...the media are using the term "spiritual marriage" when referring to these unions between an older man and numerous young girls.

If the allegations are true, it's simply older men having sex with underaged girls. That's illegal, period.
 
  • #81
lisab said:
There's a lot of discussion about "age of consent." The "consent" part of that phrase refers to consent to legal marriage. These aren't legal marriages...the media are using the term "spiritual marriage" when referring to these unions between an older man and numerous young girls.

If the allegations are true, it's simply older men having sex with underaged girls. That's illegal, period.

They're "spiritual marriages" because the law won't recognize more than one marriage for a person. If they do have more than one 'legal' marriage, then they're charged with bigamy.

Which leads to something that would be considered at least a semi-scam: if the law won't recognize the additional marriages as legal, then the second, third wife, etc are eligible for welfare benefits as unwed mothers.
 
  • #82
Court docs say there was a bed in the temple used for underage sex. Also information that there was a cult informant inside for 4 years!
 
  • #83
BobG said:
The arranged marriages of children isn't an integral part of Mormon beliefs since only two or three of the polygamous sects practice arranged marriages and/or allow children to marry.

This is an important distinction. I'm not that bothered by it if a crowd of consenting adults want to call themselves "married" and have a family. But these sects are quite obviously motivated by some kind of freaky sex and power trips, hence the total control of children and females, and the forcing them into marriage as soon as they hit puberty. The idea obviously being to lock them into a marriage and children before they become mature enough to question the influences of the middle-aged males controlling their lives or, worse yet, form romantic attachments to boys ther own age.

The other problem is that such male-dominated polygamist societies (i.e., where each man takes multiple wives) inevitably produce an excess of males that can't find a wife, who are then ostracized from the society once they reach adolescence. The fact that these people will abandon their own male children in order to prevent them from competing with middle-aged (and older) men for the sexual attentions of young girls has me convinced that they're child abusers, rather than simply leading a misunderstood-but-basically-decent lifestyle.
 
  • #84
Authorities find bed in compound temple

When authorities finally gained entrance to the three-story building, no one was inside.

But on the top they found beds allegedly used by husbands after they married underage girls on the top floor of the temple.,snip>

The discovery of the marriage beds in the temple was revealed Wednesday as troopers completed their search of the grounds of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080410/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat_127
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #85
it all sounds like the Taliban
 
  • #86
Sect's Moms Separated From Older Children
Denver Post Wire Report
Article Last Updated: 04/15/2008 01:25:04 AM MDT

SAN ANGELO, Texas — Texas officials who took 416 children from a polygamist retreat into state custody sent many of their mothers away Monday.

Of the 139 women who left the compound with their children, only those with children age 4 or younger were allowed to continue staying with them, said Marissa Gonzales of Children's Protective Services.

"It is not the normal practice to allow parents to accompany the child when an abuse allegation is made," she said.
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_8925775

The state wants to put ALL of the 416 children either in foster homes or up for adoption.

And Gokul if you can find a link identifying the 'girl who called in the complaint' please provide it.
 
  • #87
No, you have either misread or distorted the newspaper story (Which hardly qualifies as a primary, or even secondary, source to begin with). MANY of the children are being separated from their mothers; the state will attempt (there is a long and detailed legal process) to place SOME of the children (those who will have been found to have been abused) in foster homes or place them for adoption. You should know that the alleged abuse victims are older children and that there is little likelihood of quickly placing ANY of these. Nationwide, there are up to 100,000 (the number is fuzzy since there is a mixture of public and private agencies) older children already approved for adoption or placement and many of these will simply age out of the system without ever being placed. The demand for placement far outstrips the supply of suitable homes, so little happens quickly. Everybody wants cute infants; few people want teenagers with baggage.
 
  • #88
TVP45 said:
No, you have either misread or distorted the newspaper story (Which hardly qualifies as a primary, or even secondary, source to begin with). MANY of the children are being separated from their mothers; the state will attempt (there is a long and detailed legal process) to place SOME of the children (those who will have been found to have been abused) in foster homes or place them for adoption. You should know that the alleged abuse victims are older children and that there is little likelihood of quickly placing ANY of these. Nationwide, there are up to 100,000 (the number is fuzzy since there is a mixture of public and private agencies) older children already approved for adoption or placement and many of these will simply age out of the system without ever being placed. The demand for placement far outstrips the supply of suitable homes, so little happens quickly. Everybody wants cute infants; few people want teenagers with baggage.
Please substantiate your assertion I misread or misrepresented the article. Having attacked me you then attacked the source so how about the BBC? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7348079.stm
 
  • #89
Art said:
And Gokul if you can find a link identifying the 'girl who called in the complaint' please provide it.

I've heard that the call was to Child Protective Services from one source and to 911 in another source. Do you think a recording of the call exists? I haven't heard of any recordings in this case. It sure would clear things up if the recording were played on the news, eh?
 
  • #90
Art said:
Please substantiate your assertion I misread or misrepresented the article. Having attacked me you then attacked the source so how about the BBC? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7348079.stm

I did not attack you. I disputed your claim that ALL the children were to placed in foster homes or placed for adoption. The story, which is badly written, carries no byline, and has no independent substantiation, does not support your assertion of ALL.

I seldom listen to the BBC; I'm not sure why I would attack it.

I am quite willing to be found wrong in this matter, but I do ask that it be done with facts.
 
  • #91
TVP45 said:
I did not attack you. I disputed your claim that ALL the children were to placed in foster homes or placed for adoption. The story, which is badly written, carries no byline, and has no independent substantiation, does not support your assertion of ALL.

I seldom listen to the BBC; I'm not sure why I would attack it.

I am quite willing to be found wrong in this matter, but I do ask that it be done with facts.
You obviously misread what I wrote. I said the state WANTS to take all the children into care, hence the court case, not that it will necessarily be allowed by the court to do so.

If they didn't want to take all of the kids into care then they wouldn't have them all on the docket.
 
  • #92
If I misunderstood you, I apologize. I quite agree that the state wants to keep all the children in temporary custody.
 
  • #93
Greg Bernhardt said:
Court docs say there was a bed in the temple used for underage sex. Also information that there was a cult informant inside for 4 years!

Are court docs in the public domain? I would love to read how the court describes a bed in a temple.

Also information? From where? Same court docs?

My only other question is; do these 'cults' pay taxes?




This has been an interesting read. My thanks to all the participants.
 
  • #94
Alfi said:
Are court docs in the public domain? I would love to read how the court describes a bed in a temple.

Also information? From where? Same court docs?

My only other question is; do these 'cults' pay taxes?




This has been an interesting read. My thanks to all the participants.
I posted the link here. https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1684170&postcount=84
 
  • #95
But on the top they found beds allegedly used by husbands after they married underage girls on the top floor of the temple.

ah ... thanks Evo...

Alleged by the reporter, or by whom?

... but I was more looking forward to court papers rather than speculation by a writer for profit.
 
  • #96
Art said:
And Gokul if you can find a link identifying the 'girl who called in the complaint' please provide it.
This is a little old, but I just read it now.

I heard this on the radio more than a couple times, that the girl gave her name, to the authorities and the name of her husband. Being the alleged victim of a sexual assault, her name can not be revealed by authorities.
 
  • #98
russ_watters said:
It appears that the 911 calls may have been fraudulent: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/18/polygamy.fri/index.html#cnnSTCText

That's probably enough to keep people out of jail for abuse, but it is probably not enough to keep that cult in business.

If the authorities acted in good faith, a fraudalent call does not invalidate the search warrant.
 
  • #99
TVP45 said:
If the authorities acted in good faith, a fraudalent call does not invalidate the search warrant.
Really? I guess I figured that since their probably cause was not really probable cause, anything they found would be 'poisoned fruit'. I'm not a lawyer, though - I just watch too much Law and Order.
 
  • #100
If you do watch Law and Order, then may recall the episode in which Lt. VanBuren's old superior, now an executive at a Wal-Mart lookalike, provided information that led to a search. The search was invalidated when it appeared he had provided false information with VanBuren's knowledge. When it was determined she did not know the information was bad, the search results were readmitted. I hate to base legal stuff on TV, but I believe that principle generally holds.
 
  • #101
russ_watters said:
Really? I guess I figured that since their probably cause was not really probable cause, anything they found would be 'poisoned fruit'. I'm not a lawyer, though - I just watch too much Law and Order.

That's what I thought too, Russ, but a reporter said that if the authorities acted on good faith (and it appears they did), and since the crimes involve child abuse, that the evidence will stand. That makes sense; I can't imagine the law allowing child abuse to continue because of a technicality.
 
  • #102
TVP45 said:
If you do watch Law and Order, then may recall the episode in which Lt. VanBuren's old superior, now an executive at a Wal-Mart lookalike, provided information that led to a search. The search was invalidated when it appeared he had provided false information with VanBuren's knowledge. When it was determined she did not know the information was bad, the search results were readmitted. I hate to base legal stuff on TV, but I believe that principle generally holds.
Lol, I guess I missed that episode! I looked around for some info in this, but I didn't find anything concrete enough. #3 here seems to apply, though, so I'm still unsure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#Exceptions_to_the_rule
lisab said:
That's what I thought too, Russ, but a reporter said that if the authorities acted on good faith (and it appears they did), and since the crimes involve child abuse, that the evidence will stand. That makes sense; I can't imagine the law allowing child abuse to continue because of a technicality.
Those are two separate issues - the police may or may not be able to prosecute past crimes based on a tainted search, but they can certainly stop ongoing and future crimes. They can't prosecute for a possible future crime though, obviously. That's why I said in post 99 that this bad intel could keep them out of jail (I'm unsure now), but it certainly would not get them their kids back if the authorities think they are in danger.
 
  • #103
russ_watters said:
It appears that the 911 calls may have been fraudulent: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/18/polygamy.fri/index.html#cnnSTCText

I forgot to come back here and say [post=1680386]I TOTALLY CALLED IT![/post] Wheee-hoo! :biggrin: :rolleyes:

Yeah, them being unable to find the girl, then deciding to take all the kids in the town was just a little bit suspicious... Thank you, U.S. media, for swallowing all that hook, line, and sinker... I hope some justice gets done in this case, rather than something that drives Mormons further away from the mainstream and endangers more kids (and establishes some history of modern religious persecution in the U.S.).
 
  • #104
Four days after that story was reported and CNN who reported it still have the photo of the guy the fake caller accused at the top of their page for the FLDS:

http://topics.cnn.com/topics/fundamentalist_church_of_jesus_christ_of_latter_day_saints
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #105
So this is fun: 31 of the 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 either have children or are currently pregnant. It could get worse: it appears that the FLDS officials may be lying about the girls' ages to make them older to avoid the legal issues. That's still being worked out. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-28-polygamist-girls_N.htm
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top