Originally Posted By mele Er...it doesn't mean that they are NOT in a situation where abuse is likely.
Originally Posted By X-san ***But I still think Mormons are OK. If a bit weird.*** That seems to be the general consensus. Heck, even the South Park guys went easy on them (relatively speaking). Sure, they called the Book of Mormon "dumb", but that's faint praise coming from those guys. Is it really TRUE that Adam and Eve were from Alabama or Georgia or someplace else down South? Or was that just SouthPark poking fun? (seriously. I'm asking.) Anyway, I'd say the same about the folks on the LP boards, although I do notice a tendency to bail out of conversations that get too heavy. That does seem to run through all the Mormons that post on LP (and I'm very happy they DO post, I'm always interested in hearing many different perspectives on things).
Originally Posted By X-san ***They behaved in ways that made them look extremely guilty and then got upset when they weren't trusted at their word. Can't have it both ways.*** Actually, you can. If I'm innocent of any crime, and yet I "behave" in a way that makes me "look extremely guilty" of something...is that reason enough for the police to arrest me? If so..please explain how that works in a "free" country that espouses the notion of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"?
Originally Posted By X-san ***When it comes to child abuse, there is no such thing. That's the reality, good, bad, or indifferent.*** Passholder, could you clarify what exactly you mean here?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Is it really TRUE that Adam and Eve were from Alabama or Georgia or someplace else down South? Or was that just SouthPark poking fun? (seriously. I'm asking.)<< Not according to wkipedia <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A..._and_Eve</a>_(LDS_Church) So cna I convert to Mormonism? Or is it something you have to be born into?
Originally Posted By X-san Conversion is the name of their game, William. Why do you think they go door to door?
Originally Posted By mele Uh, slight difference, all of the parents weren't arrested. The children were removed from the home so that they could be examined and the situation could be investigated. The fact that some children admitted that missing children did exist and pretended not to know who their real parents were shows that *something* was going on and needed to be investigated. Police DO have the right to investigate suspicious behavior. They take people in for questioning all of the time. I'm saying these people lived their lives planning for the day that this would happen, teaching their children to lie to the police. THEY made it harder for the truth to be discovered, they made themselves look more and more suspicious, yet suddenly, when they're in deep trouble they suddenly want people to trust them? You can't tell anyone lies and then suddenly expect to be trusted.
Originally Posted By X-san ***If I'm innocent of any crime, and yet I "behave" in a way that makes me "look extremely guilty" of something...is that reason enough for the police to arrest me?*** Bad wording on my part. I realize (before Passholder or other chimes in), that the police can arrest people on whatever whim they happen to fancy that day. I should've said "is that reason enough for me to be convicted of a crime?". The whole detain, arrest and harass procedure is simple reality. Anyone can be arrested and detained (and likely harassed) for any reason a police officer might feel like giving. And for federal authorities, it gets even better.
Originally Posted By X-san ***Police DO have the right to investigate suspicious behavior. They take people in for questioning all of the time.*** Yup. Often for long periods of time with no food or water, or an opportunity to contact family or a lawyer. Convenient.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Conversion is the name of their game, William. Why do you think they go door to door?<< I despise Christianity and Christians in general, so any religion that Christians hate, is a good enough religion for me. So where do I sign up?
Originally Posted By X-san They consider themselves christian, though. Does that make a difference? I will say this without a shred of hypocrisy in my mind...if I WERE seeking a particular religion at this time I would give serious though to Mormonism. Why? Because they seem to focus on family, traditional values, community, helping people, and a happy, healthy lifestyle. They seem committed to their faith. And they seem pretty balanced (in other words, they enjoy life and have fun too). I would most certainly consider Mormonism if I were shopping, as it were.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 It's the Protestant Christian religion I have a serious problem with. I consider Mormon's a friendlier version of Christianity that gets back to basics with alot of it's faith. The fact that Protestant Christians hate them so much is hilarious.
Originally Posted By X-san What religion were you brought up in, if I may ask (I was Catholic...currently a recovering catholic, though)?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Protestant Christian. When I went to High School joined the Catholic Church, didn't really like it, ran into some hard times, got suckered into Christianity again, realized I would be better off without someone trying to make me feel guilty all the time and left religion altogether at the age of 23, joined the military and am happy where I stand spirtually. I just feel there is no "perfect christian" out there, attending church I saw alot of hypocricy that turned me away from the faith altogether. I see less hipocricy with Mormons than I do with Christians though. OK I am done hijacking this thread.
Originally Posted By X-san Ah... Guilt by Christianity is an age old issue. I'm not entirely sure the Mormons are any different in that regard though. Try drinking a coke and see what happens.
Originally Posted By Moderation I know looking at factsis strictly frowned upon in WE, but did any of you actually read the court opinion before stating what it says/means? I'll save you the trouble. In essence, the court said the CPS over stepped thier authority by siezing the subject children because: The statute states that CPS can only go in and grab children before first obtaining court oversite if a child is in imminent danger of physical harm. While there is a possible arguement to be made here for pubescent teenage girls to be in immediate danger, the CPS made no showing that the other's siezed by CPS (such as the children of the 38 parents bringing the writ) were in any immediate danger. In short, CPS isn't allowed to take short cuts. If any of the 400 children they have grabbed is actually an abused teenage girl or a teenage girl in imminent danger of being abused, CPS can hold on to them and make a showing to the district court that they are in danger - this class of potential victims appears to be less than 20 of the 400 children siezed. CPS is free to assert that the other 380+ children are at risk and bring proceedings to make them state wards, either in full or in part, but as the others ( boys of any age, infants and young girls not approaching puberty) aren't at risk of being molested, CPS has no authority to just round them up and bus them out. Further, the court rejected as specious the CPS assertion that all 400 children were of a single 'household'- the majority of families appear to have separate houses within the community, and there appears to be wide variance within the religious sect of observance of either poligamy or of forced marriage- once again, CPS is cautioned that they need to make cases and not 'one big case'. That's what the court decision says. It didn't say child abuse is OK,it didn't say that CPS can't try to make thier case, it just said that CPS has to follow the rules and can't engage in collective judgment.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "***When it comes to child abuse, there is no such thing. That's the reality, good, bad, or indifferent.*** Passholder, could you clarify what exactly you mean here?" As it relates to California law, this is what I meant: Section 305a of California's Welfare and Institutions Code: Any peace officer may, without a warrant, take into temporary custody a minor: (a) When the officer has reasonable cause for believing that the minor is a person described in Section 300, and, in addition, that the minor has an immediate need for medical care, or the minor is in immediate danger of physical or sexual abuse, or the physical environment or the fact that the child is left unattended poses an immediate threat to the child's health or safety."
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I know looking at factsis strictly frowned upon in WE, but did any of you actually read the court opinion before stating what it says/means?" Let me clarify it for you further. What the court said was that abuse needed to be happening NOW, as in right when the kids were taken. It needed to be ongoing abuse. A mere showing it was possible, or even likely to happen, was not enough. Since the state of Texas couldn't show abuse was current and ongoing, the trial judge has ten days to order the kids released to their parents. What I strongly disagree with is that even if Texas was able to show it was likely to occur, the kids have to remain until it does occur. That's what I mean by if they're your kids, it's okay to abuse them in Texas.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<the minor is in immediate danger of physical or sexual abuse>> As the Voice of Moderation pointed out, there was no reason to believe that the vast majority of the children taken were in imminent danger. I think social agencies often take the point of view that it is better to err on the side of caution and I strongly disagree with that. Having a child taken away, even temporarily, is tremendously traumatic for both the child and the parents. I think in many cases the psychological damage inflicted on the child by the separation is at least as severe as anything else they potentially face. IMMINENT DANGER. That has to mean more than the fact that they might not be good parents. When you tell yourselves that you are "doing it for the kids" you might want to think about what you are doing TO the kids.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I think social agencies often take the point of view that it is better to err on the side of caution and I strongly disagree with that." We'll agree to disagree.
