Answering 'Breaking News' continued

I'm Christian, fundamental /Southern Baptist, and politically conservate....not 'neo', strong Constitutionalist.......... yea! You Go Chuck Baldwin....all the way to office.
--------------
Response continues:

The definition of children is not defined in your statement. Many cultures, including our own, recognize the difference between a pre-pubescent child and those who have 'come of age' ....and our own society attempts to control but doesn't enforce chasity or prosecution upon the s*xual expressions of pubescent youths who 'experiment' with each other but don't rape. According to one statement by a woman who left a similar cult (yes, folks, this is not the only one) she was taught nothing of the birds and bees, and was married off at 14 years o f age, her father arranged with church official, her mother didn't want, but had no power to do anything in a male dominated society.

this may happen but it is not necessarily the all-inclusive experience of every person belonging to this sect. Force is rape. Consent at the age of 18 is not. When the Texas state allowed 14 y/o's to marry....just 3 years ago... a consenting 14 y/o was of legal age to give consent. Still seems illegal (not merely immoral) to me....but it may depend how the state of Texas regards unlicensed marriage. What if it's 2 14 y/o? A 14 y/o and someone 17 and 11 months? How about 14 and 26? If 'consent' was coerced, or forced by any means, then it is rape: In a society where early and arranged marriage is accepted as normal, it is likely that very few of these women would understand the same objections which you or I might have in the same situation.....

Guess I missed the article which establish that this was a fact, routine and customary occurrence: I read something that 'alleged' or rumoured such....but even that article suggested the rarity and the arrangment involved the leadership of the cult and the 'suitor'. The guilty should be prosecuted.

Honestly, doesn't this work both ways? Children have rights to live safely in secure homes with their none abusing parents and parents have the right to possess their belief systems, no matter how offensive it is to us, as long as their children are not abused. Is it right to take children which have not been abused from their parents because they and their parents are part of a belief system which you and I do not agree with? Why would some equate protecting their constitutional rights as support ing their belief..... when the former protects us all, but the latter is a peculiar individual expression which we Christians want to preserve for ourselves and our prosperity.... but can only do so at the expense or risk of allowing others their beliefs.

(We really must be careful here.....because we are getting into areas of justice or judgement based on the potential for wrong doing) To take this into an area of our own belief system: You (DonnA et al) and I can probably agree that we both believe the Bible is the Word of God:

The Bible teaches: Proverbs 13:24 "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. Proverbs 19: 18 "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying. Proverbs 22: 6 "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it." vs 15 "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." Proverbs 23: 13-14 "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."

What should we do? Shall we tear Proverbs out of our Bible? If one is a 'Bible believer', would it be 'right' or 'just' to remove kids from a home based upon Biblical teachings or 'the potential for (as yet no occurrance) abuse' or someone using our religion based upon the possible expression of those beliefs? This is dangerous ground for us to encourage our government to lower its requirement for proof or to expand enforcement into the 'mind reading' or 'reading the future' without some concern:

We the people still are the government, no matter how much we wish to blame 'the government' for the things we disapprove of. As the people who give our recognition to the ones which we elect to rule..... it is also our right, our opportunity, our necessity, to be careful as to what rights we protect for ourselves and our neighbors, and what are (the narrow) areas of enforcement permitted and within reason for our government to restrict. Some forms of evil we have to find constitutional ways to limit, control or change.

This last statement is not completely clear. We know only what is reported, that is what some reporter or person 'alleged'...... If their accounts are true then we may assume there was definately an effort to confuse the CPS officials in their bone dig: I would think that most mothers would know which are their own children. But when they are rounded up with little explanation and involved in a law enforcement action which purpose they know not........and which could be as much against their practice of religion, or their choice to live in a compound or closed and private community, why proffer information unnecessarily? As citizens of this country, they are within their rights to peacefully reserve their rights to speak or not to speak. Until there is a charge of abuse, there is no right to remove a child from a home.......even if that home has multiple families living under its roof.

If it were to have occurred in a Baptist Church..... we would most likely cooperate: But what if the child, and the family were unnamed and the specifics were not revealed? Would we cooperate without question the removing of our children and separating the wives from their husbands until the CPS had the time to investigate each and every family and home?

Yes, I do feel a vested interest of sorts: My ancestry.....besides being German, English is also American Indian. Not once in the history of our country has so many children been removed from their families within the citizenship: The removal of American Indian children from their families and homes and sending them on the trail of tears.... is another matter.

 

Thanks Ann.... and I accept that you have the correct info which I missed.

The thing is 3 years ago this was the law regarding a legitimately recognized marriage. It is highly doubtful that a 14 yr old and a senior citizen got any legimate license to marry:

Have they found one or several 14y/o (or under) who were forced married to old men yet?

 

I perceive that there are some who believe everything printed in the press: that believe everything the government uses to explain its actions: If so then accept the early reports of the raid that there was an inside informant living at the 'compound' for 4 years who allowed the abusive acts of incest and child rape to go on without intervening to stop the abuse or informing the authorities...or who informed the authorities but the authorities either did not notify CPS or CPS did not act for 4 years of gathering information to stop the abuse:

That over 60 women were participants in the sexual abuse of their children: That removal of over 400 children from their mothers was justified, including children as young as suckling infants and under the age of 6, were in imminent danger of incest and rape, the only charges so far which have been reported: That 3 years ago, when Texas had exceptions for 14 y/o girls to marry....that noone on the ranch.....oppps, I mean "compound" (that is the 'name' the authorities want to refer to it)....... anyway, we who read the reports that there were teenagers who gave birth..... have accepted the assumption that in every case it was the result of incest or rape and that not one conformed to the statue of law or the acceptance of society of teen with teen behavior which results in the same.

And, there is agreement with the CPS authorities who remove these children from their teen aged mothers because of the imminent danger that these mothers will commit or allow sexual abuse of their infants and young to occur. And, there is agreement on this board, that the teen mothers, who are all victims of sexual abuse, also present a real and imminent danger to their own children which deserves the removal of their children from them and placement in a scattered foster care system across the state.

Furthermore, there is agreement on this board that the court which ruled that most of the children were not in imminent danger and should be returned to their mothers, was less informed than we are and is unjust in its ruling:

Bottom line, we believe our media reports......selectively, and we accept government's explanations without question. We accept that foster care is wholesome placement for children, that children belong to the government and in homes which they approve: and that government is the best judge of what constitutes abuse and is correct in all instances of its determinations.


-----------------
According to statements, CPS believes there are over 2,000,000 children abused in our country each year! The majority are not reported. A mere 400+ children is just a dent in their goals of ending child abuse. ............Coming, perhaps, to a town or a church, or a charitable institution, or a orphanage, or a home for unwed mothers, or a home schooler, or a home........NEAR YOU!

http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=nr_fact_sheets_childabusedata

 

I've read that too.... and its contradictions. It is hard to know what is information and what is disinformation.

According to some reports I read.... some nursing children were removed. No medication given the nursing mothers and some of the young children sent into foster care.....

But then I did also read the report that there was an informant living on the ranch(none of these things can I now find in the currently posted reports and old links don't connect to the material I oringinally read), ...... and I also remember reading about the mental health worker's protest that the removal of the children was more traumatic and severe than any imminent danger alleged by the CPS:

=====================
I agree with the MH on the basis, that keeping mothers and children together during an investigation under these particular allegations is relatively safe.... any harm would be immediately identified as suspicious so at this point the children have protection: rapport and trust relationships might develop between the investigators and the 'client/suspects' which might encourage a more candid and honest disclosure and more beneficial information; The allegations on which the removal of the children was based involved children older than 12 (presumably 14) but which could have sufficed by protecting in place those under age 10 or 12, and temporary boarding or foster placement of all children above that age.... until enough was known to make decisive decisions like prosecuting some, restoring some families, and dividing some families.

One thing the MH workers know/knew..... the investigation was only beginning and would take time, the allegations ....just that, an unproven but serious report: children are easily traumatized by significant change.... especially when unprepared and unexplained: In an event as large as this was, some disorder is to be expected and may account for some false messages..... but false messages do frequently occur until there is a new establishment of order in the field which includes the one or ones who make the policy and decide the boundaries and the limits of flexibility. Crimes and abuse require victims, perpetrators and behaviors: This requires persons with names and actions called behaviors.....not beliefs. Then you have a case.

I dare say the MH workers were more objective but quickly thrown out and had no serious status..... MH were probably the window dressing which CPS hoped would increase the legitamacy of the action: the raid was conducted by the authority of the CPS or it might not have occurred. Confi8dentiality statements are frequently required..... and are a professional acknowldgement of privacy rights. If the CPS invited or allowed the MH workers to assist in the assessments of the children and the mothers.... the confidentiality was there to protect the identities of parents, children and staff conducting the investigation. MH workers are typically silent (confidential) and don't identify (call by name or divulge how known) each other when 'out of office' or associated disciplines (i.e. social and case workers) or clients.

MH workers are not inclined to give subjective (or opinionated) observations: Behavior is specific: If someone is angry and threatening and beligerant and disrepectiful...... all these are subjective and each person who reads this would have his own idea (judgement/ opinion) of what this 'someone' was like: But, if I or a MH worker describes someone as 'he got red in the face and broke a sweat, and rapidly approached writer with his arm extended and his finger pointing until his finger was within an inch of my nose, and he was standing leaning towards me..... all the while calling me in a loud voice "you hokem blokem doboly do' who do you think you are you 'swear word here and specific curse word there' and whatever else was said as exact quotes here." then we can read this or hear this testimony and practically picture it as though we witnessed it and any judgements made because of the specifically objective material (uses our 5 senses, what words, tone, tempo, what was seen, smelled, heard, tasted, felt: nothing regarding 'opinion' or 'interpretation'.)

I know some questioned the 'confidentiality statements'...... They are misinformed if they think MH workers broke confidentiality by speaking to the problems they saw.

The MH workers did break one very critical law of politics and govenment agencies which often have to compete with each other: Namely, unless you are very well confident in the necessity of your own office and its funding and the demand and support of the public..... watch carefully the money powers behind them before you make public those you might cross. In agencies and politics.... Some agencies are rich in funding...... and also power because of all the money which flows to and through them: CPS, while it will tell everyone that it is underfunded..... which is probably true...It has tremendous monies poured into it and through it to foster care and for promoting adoption and for case management. MH may get some referrals from CPS for substance abuse counseling, anger management, treatment of PTSD, depression, anziety and dissociative disorders, and personality disorders....... any of which may be the result of childhood abuse, or develop into some form of child abuse if coping skills are inadequate. CPS may be able to save the broken pieces from being discarded.... but, frequently, it is through MH that the pieces start going back together again.