Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Sex and Relationships

Sex Abuse in the Name of Religion Isn't a Lifestyle -- It's Sex Abuse

By Ellen Goodman, Truthdig. Posted May 23, 2008.


The call to understand the polygamous sect as just another unique corner of multicultural America is relativism run amok.
Advertisement

BOSTON -- During the Vietnam War there was a phrase that came to symbolize the entire misbegotten adventure: "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it." It was said at first with sincerity, then repeated with irony, and finally with despair.

I have heard similar thoughts in the weeks since Texas authorities invaded a ranch in Eldorado and rounded up hundreds of children from the polygamous sect of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Did they traumatize the children in order to protect them? Did they shatter their lives to rescue them?

The invasion came after a tip from a 16-year-old who called herself a victim of sexual abuse. The tip may turn out to be a hoax, but the practices of the sect are well known.

In the world of the FLDS, "spiritual marriage" between older men and underage girls -- what the law defines as rape -- is given the stamp of religious approval. Of 53 girls believed to be between 14 and 17, more than 30 have children or are pregnant, including one who gave birth to her second child in custody. Among the boys, too, there is suspicion of widespread physical abuse. Indeed, many teenage boys are routinely banished to preserve the odds of polygamy.

Nevertheless, the story of children taken from parents, of families wrenched apart, has produced enormous concern and worry in the past weeks. Is this a rescue operation or a state-sponsored attack on parents? Should the state enforce a set of values or tolerate "alternative lifestyles" and religions?

These questions themselves say something about our own cultural moment. Who, after all, doesn't do a double take when hearing that these "endangered children" were never exposed to the Internet or television or processed food? The girls in their prairie dresses who are raised for assigned men have never text-messaged or eaten Fruit Loops or seen "Hannah Montana." The children's requests for a bread-making machine and prayer time have led to some ironic comments about exactly which culture is protecting children.

More to the point is the concern about separating children from parents. Every agency balances the risks of leaving children in a dangerous setting and the trauma of removing them. But cases are generally weighed one at a time. What's different about the FLDS case is that it was a wholesale roundup of all the children of a whole community.

This makes many, like Jane Spinak, a Columbia Law professor who has represented children in foster care, uneasy. "We may not like their lifestyle," she says. "We may not condone the practice of multiple women living together with a man, but it's not for the court to decide lifestyles." Spinak remembers when children were removed from biracial families, let alone gay families. "Lots of people live lives we don't think are good for their children, but we don't take the children away." Indeed, this citizen of New York archly reminds me that two governors in the last few months admitted having had multiple sex partners but their children were not removed as a result.

Nevertheless, what do we make of an entire sect that has sexual abuse at its very heart? That believes plural "marriages" between older men and underage women are not an aberration but a pathway to heaven?

Nobody can prosecute FLDS members for what they believe, says Marci Hamilton, author of "God vs. the Gavel." "They can stay together and believe what they want into eternity. What they can't do is illegal action."

She compares their community to a crack house. "If you go into a drug den in a burnt-out rowhouse and all the adults are drug addicts, how can you leave the children there?" Hamilton calls this sect a "conspiracy of adults to commit systematic child sex abuse."

I understand the ambivalence toward this dramatic story. The uprooting of distraught children from pained parents strikes a primal core. And we are aware that many state foster care systems are flawed enough to amount to a second kind of abuse. But surely the call to understand this sect as just another unique corner of multicultural America is relativism run amok.

Individual hearings are underway. I hope that the children and mothers will tell the truth rather than follow the admonition to "keep sweet." I hope mothers will choose their children over obedience to their patriarchs.

But in the end, what we have on that ranch in Eldorado is not a lifestyle. It's a pedophile ring. If we cannot rescue children from that, we've already destroyed their village.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: children, abuse, trial, polygamy, flds

Ellen Goodman is a member of the Washington Post Writers Group.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I could care less what idiocy they believe
Posted by: UnEasyOne on May 23, 2008 3:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When a barely pubescent girl is forced into a "marriage" it is no marriage at all - and it is not statutory rape; it's rape.

Slavery is illegal - and raising your own sex slaves to trade among yourselves is several kinds of illegal.

Give me a dozen girls that I can completely isolate and control - that I can indoctrinate from birth - whose "education" and information sources I can control completely, whose very existence is unrecorded in any public record (so if an unfortunate death or two occur, none is the wiser), whom I can impregnate as soon as that is biologically possible - to bind them to me completely, and allow me to selectively tell them how hard and dangerous the outside world is (for them AND their babies) and it will be a rare girl indeed who escapes.

If they are fearful enough of the consequences, very few will even think of such a thing with anything but terror and the vast majority will tell anyone who asks how grateful they are for the opportunity to stay exactly where they are.

This is NOT "religious freedom" - any more than was the 3/5ths law regarding slaves was relevant to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

That this abomination is permitted here - and has been for a hundred years, goes beyond scandal - and diminishes us all.

As far as I am concerned, I don't care what marital arrangements consenting adults arrive at - but harems of jointly-owned progeny to be swapped amongst a favored few fanatics is such a perversion of marriage as to render the word meaningless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The problem with humanity
Posted by: blogbooks on May 23, 2008 3:53 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is that we always think our way is the right way. After all, if it's good enough for me then it's good enough for everyone right?

The next step is always to force our way of life on everyone else. Because they are "savages" or "extremists" or whatever the buzz word of the day is to demonize a people and their culture.

You're no better than anyone else. Stop thinking you are.

This is the same as "bringing democracy to the Middle East."

Let's just destroy every culture that isn't like ours and turn everyone into American Idol watching, pizza gobbling, fat asses. That seems to be the order of the day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amen
Posted by: carbon-based on May 23, 2008 3:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is amazing what people call religion or do in the name of religion.. Is terrorizing women a religious right?..did god demand that old sleezy men have sex with young girls? As if it would save them.. is that considered going to heaven?

Some religion, if you're a perverted guy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Amen Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Amen Posted by: carbon-based
Court Says Texas Illegally Seized Sect’s Children
Posted by: gazooks on May 23, 2008 4:01 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HOUSTON — A Texas appeals court ruled on Thursday that the state had illegally seized up to 468 children from their homes at a polygamist ranch in West Texas. The decision abruptly threw the largest custody case in recent American history into turmoil.
(full story- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/us/23raid.html?hp )

So, opinions are not the law, and actual evidence of abuse is requisite for a state to interfere with the religious lifestyle of a community.

A fortunate thing for all that those willfully sitting in certain judgement of what they think, suppose or speculate are not, in the end, given the weight to sustain a wholesale, invasive disruption and destruction of citizen lives.

I personally find it dismaying that there are so many here so willing to suppose the very worst of these people on the flimsiest of "evidence", and continue to vilify and characterize "them" as prurient in belief, criminal in intent and somehow unworthy of constitutional protections.

It seems that we haven't learned much since Salem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» the difference Posted by: aislinnluv
» RE: the difference Posted by: Tombo
» your logic has flaws Posted by: aislinnluv
» Thanks for the word Posted by: january37
Call 'em what they are - MORMONS
Posted by: fbc21ca on May 23, 2008 4:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"

I find it a bit odd that the media refers to these people as "an LDS church." Why don't they just come out and say "Mormon?" Why the obfuscation? Are they afraid of pissing off Mitt Romney or something?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Call 'em what you are Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: Call 'em what you are Posted by: fbc21ca
Yep
Posted by: kenhymes on May 23, 2008 4:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(Pre-emptive caveat: I think the sect is creepy and probably abusive, but that CPS blew it by not gathering enough actual evidence, and by casting the net over the whole group, engaging in collective punishment).

So don't ya think it's pretty obvious that American children must all be rounded up and sent to another country, perhaps Sweden or Germany? After all, they are clearly being abused and endangered at an obscenely high rate (much higher sexual abuse and domestic violence rates than in Europe, e.g.), wilfully denied medical care, knowingly exposed to poisonous and cancer-causing plastics, and later tricked into participation in a death cult known as the Army.

It's obvious. We're a toxic and abusive culture with no respect for the rights or needs of our own children, and we don't have a right to be parents. Who's going to be first to turn themselves in?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sloppy, sloppy sloppy...
Posted by: whathaway on May 23, 2008 4:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes Sexual abuse is wrong no matter how you slice it, but the key element in sexual abuse in not the 'sex' but the ABUSE. This sect may have some odd, even bizarre sexual rituals compared with the general society; rituals with which I personally and we as a general society do not agree with. But is it necessarily abusive when you are only looking at the age issue? Coercion, deception, exploitation, and force are elements that also need to be present in some way. If we are to intrude into these people's lives we must be certain that we are are doing so to uphold human rights, protecting others from abuse. This article does not privide any evidence that indeed abuse was occurring (the original claim of abuse now may be a hoax).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Huh? Posted by: january37
Horny Old Child Molestors
Posted by: Magginkat on May 23, 2008 5:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In some cases they banish teenage boys from their little village??? Yeah! Right!

Horny old men who don't want the competition. Horny old goats that an ordinary woman in ordinary life,wouldn't give the time of day. Is that how this starts?

What gets me is how many women are in this mess. I realize some have been brainwashed but what can explain the crowd that is in this compound.

These nasty old bastards are child molestors, I don't give a hoot if they call it religion.

One Texas court threw out the case against these vile cretins yesterday and the rest of the day we were bombarded with the pictures of the smiling zombies stading behind the lawyer who "won" this case.

Freedom of religion is one thing. These children should have freedom from this religion.

This is what came with the rabid right when they took over this country. The republicans used these religious nut cases to take over this country. What will it take to get this slime out of goverment?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Horny Old Child Molestors Posted by: free woman
One more example of the growth of fascsist thought.
Posted by: leland61 on May 23, 2008 5:24 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that the state has the right to interfere with religious practices because this religious minority believes in multiple marriages is nothing more or less than another example of growing fascist thinking in this country.

Americans practice polygamy on the installment plan all the time - it is called divorce and remarriage. Yet when a group of people says that is stupid and wrong, suddenly we have 'moral outrage'. Humbug and nonsense.

If there was sexual abuse it needs to be identified and dealt with on a case by case basis. Whenever the state or any of its agencies begins to invade entire communities and round people up and separate children from parents what you have is a POLICE STATE and STATE TERRORISM AGAINST ITS OWN CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS.

This is yet another example of what this country has degenerated into and the so called liberals are aiding and abetting the descent into totalitarianism and fascism. We already have a new Gestapo called Homeland Security whose minions are rounding up brown skinned people by the thousands and casting adults and children into prison camps.

TIME TO WAKE UP FOLKS BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. Fascists always can find a good reason for state sponsored terrorism; protection of children is one of the most pathetic pieces of propaganda so far.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Church-inflicted child abuse is all around you
Posted by: Moonray on May 23, 2008 5:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's strange that the FLDS cult is getting so much attention when so-called mainstream religions are inflicting tremendous psychological damage on children and adults every day. If the same criteria were applied to, say, the Southern Baptists or conservative Catholic groups as the FLDS, there wouldn't be enough federal marshals to round up all the usual suspects.

In fact, I strongly suspect the FLDS raid was launched after complaints from at least one other church in Texas -- complaints mainly stemming from jealousy over the FLDS' wealth and laid-back coupling arrangements. Primitive churches virtually rule communities in Texas and throughout the South, so it's a good bet their grimy hands are all over the FLDS fiasco.

The bottom line is that religions -- ALL religions -- cause tremendous harm and our society should acknowledge that by strongly discouraging participation in any group that is based on superstition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» oh please Posted by: liberalibrarian
» you are right Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: oh please Posted by: SOWILO
PS. I agree with the court that state went too far
Posted by: Moonray on May 23, 2008 5:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As much as I dislike religious cults -- especially those with branches on every corner -- I dislike arrogant government agencies even more. I agree that the Texas CPS acted like a bunch of Nazis in taking those kids away. Whoever authorized and supervised the raid should be fired -- and that includes state officials all the way up to the governor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The appeals court decision won't be popular.
Posted by: PaulK on May 23, 2008 6:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the state picks up 30 pregnant victims of statutory sexual assault, a felony, and the defense later proves that half of the 30 are actually over 16 because the perps successfully conspired to bamboozle the cops, is this an adequate reason to drop the charges concerning the other 15 victims?

Tell this one to a mob enforcer. If you poison 30 guys, and your expensive lawyer can prove that 15 of them had heart attacks before you actually killed them, then in the eyes of the court you're not liable for whacking the other 15 guys!

So, the State of Texas is going to take all the 13 and 14 year old girls and put them back in the compound, on the grounds that they haven't been impregnated by their great-uncles quite yet. It was only 15 or so of their sisters who had a problem with the community, the 13 and 14 year old girls are perfectly safe, not the tiniest chance of the entire community conspiring to reoffend. After all, these are Christian white breeding stock, the very moral fiber of America. As a matter of fact, the pregnant 15 year old girls, they're perfectly safe too because you can't get pregnant twice (wink). Send them all back.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm wondering.....
Posted by: Marlena on May 23, 2008 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why they need a DNA destroying oven in their sanctuary?? Makes it convenient to dispose of unwanted corpses doesn't it?? Oh well it's their "religious" freedom. Funny how the most vile,disgusting, inhuman things can and have been justified in the name of religions...and no we do not have to accept any wacko cult that is a pack of perverted lawbreakers to practice their lawlessness and perversions under the name of "religion" With freedom comes responsibility

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm wondering..... Posted by: VZEQICVA
Hypocrites
Posted by: uncleeddie on May 23, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No proof has to be offered to raid a peaceful sect. A complete hoax to commit a felony is ok with you hypocrites as long as big brother does it. Wait till the state gets a hold of these children and shows them what real abuse is. Of course you hero's won't be around then because you don't really care. A murderous country that is slowly slipping into tyranny is hardly in a position to arbitrarily judge anyones morals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about the subjugation of women?
Posted by: Last Chance on May 23, 2008 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When a few Bible-exploiting men dominate the lives of many women and require them to dress and act obediently and to birth many children, is that not a violation of their human rights? Or have they been so mind-controlled from childhood to accept the superiority of men over women and to keep the secrets of their lust from "outsiders". Any way you look at it, polygamous cults are an abomination and should be completely outlawed and closed down. -- The key is respect for women's rights, including the right to decide if and when and how many children to bring into this crazy World.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you!
Posted by: ladyoracle on May 23, 2008 7:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I couldn't agree more with this author. Parenthood does not trump all other questions, and America needs to get over its nostalgia for the Madonna and Child image long enough to get that those women are brainwashed to harm thier children--at the very least by allowing them to be manipulated by others just like they were.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thank you! Posted by: 23skidoo
AN OBLIGATION TO PROTECT CHILDREN
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 23, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the real world, women lose their children for lesser reasons. After Katrina in New Orleans children were seperated from parents for months. As long as there's a religious connection I guess it's acceptable. As taxpayers we fund this nonsense. We should be able to change that. Cut out welfare & food stamps and let them support themselves and their children. There are more laws to protect animals than children. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Offensive Behavior Is In the Eye of the Beholder
Posted by: redbird30328 on May 23, 2008 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think most people would agree that when young teenage girls are coerced into sexual relations with much older men under the auspices of religious customs, this constitutes offensive behavior. The majority of Americans also regard homosexuality as offensive (if you don't believe this, watch how easily the upcoming CA constitutional amendment effort passes). Yet, homosexuality is celebrated on this forum. You start down a slippery slope when you start trying to tell other people how to live; you may end up being told how to live.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» pop- the can of worms opens Posted by: aislinnluv
If this is protection....
Posted by: SageRave on May 23, 2008 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then let's go a step further and outlaw the teaching of ANY religious dogma to anyone before the age of 18.

This would protects both children and society at large.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: If this is protection.... Posted by: redbird30328
» RE: Now there's a solution Posted by: shannasmusic
Sex and relationships?
Posted by: zorro on May 23, 2008 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it odd that this article is posted under sex and relationships. This is not sex--it is abuse, coercion, slavery...human rights, civil rights... but its not sex. Rape is not sex--it's a an attack! If this cult was performing ritual murder would it be ok? 'cause of religious freedom. I thik we need to put this topic back on the table--should we have religious freedom? Religion is nothing more than state-sponsored brainwashing--and it does more harm to society than good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» separation Posted by: liberalibrarian
Should Utah secede...?
Posted by: Ipsi Dixit on May 23, 2008 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps the best thing for the state of Utah (where most members of the Church of Latter-Day Saints/Mormons seem to reside) should be to secede from the union. After all, it only entered the Union when its founder's immediate successor suddenly had a convenient message from God telling him to revoke his founders teachings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Utah Prosecute that stuff Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
To Sloppy, and his? ilk who believe sex with minors is not in and of itself abuse
Posted by: smadaj on May 23, 2008 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ho Young Padawan Apprentice - The Sex Itself Is Abuse When Perpetrated On A Minor

Oddly enough, in our society, we've decided that there is some nebulous age when children are still children, generally prior to puberty, but extending into the first few years of adolescence - and the majority of us have also reached the conclusion that when children move through adolescence, if they decide to express themselves sexually, it's generally with someone who has that same youthful glow that they have.

What planet are you from that says a fourteen year old girl might find a sixty year old man sexually appealing? Planet Playboy? You should learn that porn tells you lies about the population it depicts, and move yourself closer to living in the real world, where compassion counts for at least a little something.

You missed the coercion, deception and exploitation inherent in a society such as this particular sect perpetrates against it's female population for the purpose of sexual gratification of the males. Watch out for what humans say in the name of God. 'Cause they'll say whatever serves their own higher purpose.

Otherwise, you'll never make Jedi.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial . . ."
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on May 23, 2008 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The point here, obviously and as the court has correctly ruled (the wonder is that matters like this have to wait for a court to rule on something so thunderously apparent), is that it is unconstitutional to round up almost 500 people in order to see if they might have done something illegal. As I write this, a local police department is doing the same, stopping everyone travelling on certain streets to see if their seat belt is buckled. Next we'll round up everyone wearing a long, plain dress. IT'S AGAINST THE LAW TO DO THAT. It's against the law, even if the majority of people (those who do "buckle up") agree with it. Finally, and beside the point, sex and marriage customs are a matter of culture, religion, and morality. You can't have it both ways. "Congress shall make no law" means just that; meanwhile, until feminism can get its splattered thoughts together on the matter of sex and morality, I for one wish it would refrain from interjecting its PMS-driven arguments into every issue even remotely related - from sticking its out-of-joint nose in the nation's business, in other words. By the nitwit criteria people like these would foist upon us all, both my grandmothers - sixteen before being married to the same men for more than fifty years - were "victims" of rape.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And while I'm thinking about my last here . . .
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on May 23, 2008 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Will someone here so supportive of "women's rights" and all that explain to us all why it is that among the 90,000 women who made false charges of rape last year, not one has been prosecuted for making false charges? Mightn't views like those expressed here have something political to do with it? Wasn't the San Angelo Mormons case based upon another (specious) charge of supposed rape? Does anyone see, perhaps, how we have - at least in part and as a contributing factor - become a nation behaving for all the world like a woman suffering from her monthly PMS? Is it unreasonable to wonder if, should the next president declare war on another nation by accusing it of rape, all of feminism would eagerly agree (and probably sign up to fight?). Come to think of it, isn't ALL of Islamic marriage rape by the criteria argued here by feminists?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Children are Human too
Posted by: baldhawk on May 23, 2008 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That these things can happen is rooted in our society that believes indoctrinating children in the parents' belief is normal or natural.

To assume parents or adults have rights over a child thinking and life beyond enforcing safety, to keep the child from jumping into a snake pit, or touching a burning stove, is dangerous at best.

Why hesitate on any grounds to remove a child from a home where the child's will is subverted to the point that when he/she reaches adulthood, there will be no choice left in life?

Even remotely considering parents have the right to impose a religious ideology on their children's is not in a child's best interest, not now, not in the long run.

It has nothing to do with protecting life style or fringe value which have a right to exist. Such children have no spokespeople to look after their own interest, nor have enough information to know what's their best interest, since that too has been blocked.

Only after the child is removed from such abusive environments, and is allowed to experience a broader life, will the child be able to recover his own sense of self and right to his personal choices. Given that, he'll be glad to have been rescued.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sexualization of girls
Posted by: MamaJulie on May 23, 2008 9:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is my first comment ever and I feel compelled to weigh in. I am sad for the children separated from their mothers who are "voluntarily" members of a religious cult/sect. We all know the foster care system can be a living hell. Theses kids are being punished in the name of child protection, even as our larger, poisoned American culture similarly sexualizes young girls and raises them to believe that satisfying men and winning their attention is their primary purpose on the planet. However, I am disgusted by forced or arranged marriage wherever it takes place and especially sickened with marriage when the man is old enough to be someone's father or grandfather, whether its Anna Nicole Smith or a girl dressed up like an American Girl doll from the mid-19th century. What kind of mother, though, would sacrifice her child to a life of servitude and breeder vessel to a man-god-patriarch? Sounds very Biblical, doesn't it? Only someone who has been brainwashed into thinking it's the only way to heaven.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sexualization of girls Posted by: gazooks
Well...There's that Pesky Due Process Thing
Posted by: JohnJlws on May 23, 2008 9:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know the following post will probably make some uncomfortable, but our country was founded in part because the revolutionaries were seeking due process.

When did we become a land without due process?

I disagree with the multi-wife, illegal lifestyle of some in the FLDS. I’m repulsed by men who have sex with kids and anyone who allows it, regardless if it’s in the name of wonderful “religion,” or it’s just the product of a sick mind. I think there were other options, like asking the men to leave the compound, or, if we’re all so concerned, providing the resources to CPS that would allow them to station however many caseworkers for however long at the compound until the courts sorted it all out.

This seems like a decision made out of perceived necessity and efficiency, but a better decision might have resulted, if there had been inclusion of mental health experts, the legal community and more resources. We should base decisions on facts not innuendo, rumor, urban legend or whether someone looks and acts different.

I’m wondering, too, when we decided “guilty until proven innocent,” like we do at Gitmo, was okay. If we say “he’s a child abuser, rescue the children,” then doesn’t this argument extend rather scarily into every aspect of “odd” behavior and every charge that might be leveled against any of us? And I take exception to several of the foundational arguments of this piece:

“…but the practices of the sect are well known.” Well, if they’re so well known then proving them in our legal system, like is guaranteed to all Americans in our Constitution, should be a pretty simple process.

“…Of 53 girls believed to be between 14 and 17…” Does this included the women that appeared to be so young as to be “children,” but in fact turned out to be adults? If perpetrated by the state, I wonder if false imprisonment and kidnapping are crimes.

“Nevertheless, what do we make of an entire sect that has sexual abuse at its very heart?” I haven’t seen this document. I’ve “heard” about it like in your statement “…but the practices of the sect are well known.” I’d like to see the document you’re referencing. I’m wondering if this isn’t one of those circular arguments: i.e., “but the practices, like the entire sect has sexual abuse at its heart, are well known.” Again, if things like these are so transparent and pervasive, let’s get them resolved in the legal system we supposedly have. If they’re a product of the fact they all look like and behave like weirdoes, let’s try to exhibit a bit more intelligence.

“It's a pedophile ring.” There are indications that there has been some abuse as there are in virtually all populations. Let’s prosecute those who are perpetrators of this abuse and let’s prosecute anyone who is responsible for allowing their children to be abused, but let’s not take 400 “kids,” away from their parents because “the practices of the sect are well known.” Otherwise, I fear, all of us may be the subject of another headline lamenting “…another unique corner of multicultural America is relativism run amok.”

Let’s prosecute criminals in the courts and if we don’t like that process, let’s change the process. What happened at the FLDS strikes me as “concern for the children” run amok and a gross violation of due process that any one of us would demand, regardless of the charges against us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gosh, you mean there's no easy answer?
Posted by: Sojourner on May 23, 2008 10:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the shouting at each other going on here seems to indicate we have difficulty with complexities. Welcome to the modern world.

I agree with those who find the paternal management of the community, as if they were raising hogs, to be disgusting. I also agree with those who say that none of us is so free of *sin* that we can throw the first stone.

That's why we have laws and courts in the first place. Otherwise we'd have decisions made by people who cannot recognize how they need everyone else to be just like themselves.

Yes, the interference of the state generated some temporary dislocation for a whole lot of people. But that same state also enforced the guidelines that reject such interference. Democracy 1 Autocracy 0.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

jareilly
Posted by: jareilly on May 23, 2008 10:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, Ellen kicked up a sh*t storm here. I would suggest that some of the libertarian, anti-CPS posters read John Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven", about the FLDS. Whatever it is they claim to believe, basically, they are a criminal racket. The LDS, in fact, started out as a criminal racket, which is one of the main reasons they were run out of the East to Utah. They cheated on contracts, did shoddy work, refused to pay debts and stole property, while recruiting or is it kidnapping, people's daughters. Joseph Smith invented the Mormon doctrine on multiple wives to excuse his multiple affairs with other men's wives. FLDS partriarch's think it's cute to marry a dozen teen girls and then put the girls and their kids all on welfare. They think of it as putting one over on the unbelievers, whom they view as inferior.

If the Texas CPS blew the case, then it should be thrown out in the courts. But that doesn't excuse what goes on in Warren Jeff's FLDS mafia. And it doesn't make us facsists if we believe a willfully ignorant criminal cult should be broken up. As for the women in the cult being it's biggest supporters, remember that in Africa, it is often the women, even the mothers, who perform female genital mutilation. Cruelty and barbarism vs. children can never be justified by "cultural and religious freedom". There is no basis in the Bible or the Koran for underaged polygamy or genital mutilation. These practices are artifacts of debased, run-down cultures which have lost their original reasons to exist. They are not unlike genetic disorders carried on by small sub-populations, that stay in the breeding pool even though they no longer confer any survival advantage on the carriers (if they ever did).

Once you are 18 if you want to cut yourself up or marry your aging second cousin, it's your choice. Before then, the state, the people have a clear and unambiguous interest in protecting you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FLDS is another life style, live with it
Posted by: Noblestarr on May 23, 2008 11:15 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While many people might agree with Ellen, I do not agree with her conclusion or her leap across the Grand Canyon from acceptable life styles to calling FLDS a “pedophile ring”. This is not to say that I approve of the FLDS life style, indeed, I do not.

Her bias is shown early, when she calls rape sex “between older men and underage girls.” However, the Texas statute uses the term “sexual assault” for sex between a person of any age and a “child” not the spouse of the actor. A child is defined as a person UNDER the age of 17. More over, with parental consent, a person 16 years or older can marry. (NOTE: the age may have been 15 before a change to the law in 2005. Further, I have to wonder whether the change was targeted at FLDS.)

Use of the term “older men” is also misleading. While it is true that the men at issue are older, the term I believe was meant to suggest “OLD” men rather than, for example, men between the age of 17 and 30.

For the sake of argument, if polygamy were legal in Texas and the year was before 2005, most of what Ellen Goodman and Marci Hamilton call rape would NOT be “sexual abuse” under Texas law. And Texas does not use the term “rape.” This is sloppy use of the term because rape inherently suggests wrong doing and coercion. In my opinion, she hasn’t laid out a clear case of either.

I do believe in the rule of law and, in the case of the raid on YFZ Ranch, I hope FLDS men challenge Texas’s bigamy law. After all, it was only a few years ago in Texas v. Lawrence (2003) the Supreme Court struck down Texas sodomy law. The Court also struck down Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law in Loving v. Virginia (1967) and the California Supreme Court recently struck down the state’s law defining marriage as between “one man and one woman.” It seems to me that life style prohibitions are “out.”

As a civil libertarian, I am appalled. Since the raid was wrong and possibly the search, I think Texas has a black eye, the children should be returned to their parents and there should be no prosecutions bigamy. If by truly independent (of the raid) and legal means, Texas officials discover that an FLDS (or other) adult has sex with a person under 15 years of age, then I have no reservation of prosecuting the adult for sexual assault under § 22.011 the Texas Penal Code.

Ellen plays fast and loose in other ways. For example, she states that the tip came from a “16-year old who called herself a victim of sexual abuse.” While she subsequently states that the call may turn out to be a hoax, the fact of the matter is that it is now believed that the caller is much older than 16 and never visited the YFZ Ranch. Nor was the allegation corroborated by other evidence.

She says that “many teenage boys are routinely banished” but provides us no clue as to how many boys have actually been “banished” from the YFZ Ranch. May be it’s not many. And is banishment illegal?

In sum, I think Ellen’s article is a sloppy piece of work and her conclusion lacks merit. But I give her credit for the Vietnam War phrase for a catchy lead in. And it applies – Texas is trying to destroy a life style. She should have taken her own lead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

they are not
Posted by: jeffersonian on May 23, 2008 11:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"underage women" they are girls

and it is ILLEGAL in most states. The adults belong in prison and the kids belong in foster homes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: they are not Posted by: VZEQICVA
when
Posted by: jeffersonian on May 23, 2008 11:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
having sex with multiple young girls is interpreted as "what would Jesus do?"

one might be describing a "cult"

they are just hiding behind "religious freedom" to do whatever they want

the authorities should be even tougher on them next time

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: