Eldorado, Texas
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Eldorado, Texas
So what is your opinion of this?
I fluxuate between, these are pedifiles hiding under the relgion umbrella and religion is different for all of us and there is supposed to be a seperation.
I personally could not be in a polygamist relationship. However I guess there are those that like that lifestyle. If the new wives are 18 and consenting I guess they should be allowed to live how they want.
However, I guess the scoop is the marrying age is 14.
I think it is interesting how this is being handled. They are struggling really interviewing the girls deciding who is who.
My son commented last night, "I hope this doesn't become another Waco", and I think that thought is at the back of a lot of minds, including the agencies and agents who have gone in.
I am not disturbed by adults living in a relationship of one man with several women - heck, it happens all the time throughout this country and the world. It's just that in this country we don't call it bigamy/polygamy unless a man officially (with marriage license and registration) marries more than one woman at a time; having one wife and several sweeties isn't legally considered polygamy. And, whatever this group calls it, legally it is not marriage because no legal entity has recognized any of the marriages with multiple wives - sort of like the situation where same-sex couples can have their relationship "blessed" in some denominations or specific churches, but the state in which they live doesn't recognize a legal relationship. I find myself wishing the authorities would accept a similar kind of relationship for the members of this sect - do all the religious blessing of relationships that you want, as long as both parties are of age and are fully consenting, but the secular authorities will not recognize the relationship as a marriage under secular law.
I agree totally with Kaye, any girls under legal age (or of any age) should not be coerced or pressured into an intimate relationship, marriage or whatever you call it - even if they consent. Given that they have been raised in the culture of this group, how would anyone know if the consent is "knowing and willing"?
I am disturbed by the cultic nature of this group, but I also recognize that they must feel very defensive, with both secular and religious authorities "against" them (which is an accurate feeling - just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you).
I find it interesting that although the authorities have removed all females under legal age from the compound, they have not yet been able to identify the alleged 16 year old who alleged abuse. I find myself wondering if that message about abuse may have come from some other source - someone who is not a 16 year old girl coerced into marriage with one of the men in the group.
If you are a consenting ADULT, then it is your decision and your choice. However, when you start requiring minors to marry and have sex with old men, you are breaking the law and abusing the girl. Of course the government should step in. How is it different from anyone else being arrested for the rape or even statuatory rape of a minor? You shouldn't be allowed to hide behind the veil of "religion" to do things that are unlawful and abusive.
Oh, I absolutely agree, Adena. And that is one of the terrible things about this cult and any cults. They brainwash gullible adults and their children and then abuse them, and it is the leaders, the "old men" who do what they want and get away with it because they've trained and brainwashed their followers so well that they are not challenged. Fortunately, it is harder and harder to live so apart from the rest of the world.
I'm going to step in very politely, as a Waco citizen, to remind everyone that the Branch Davidian debaucle at the Mount Carmel compound did NOT happen in Waco, but in the city of Elk. My FIL was Mayor of Waco at the time, and my family received threats....just goes to show what the media can do to the innocent.
I realize the media will never allow situations like this to be anything but a 'Waco', but I'll stand up for my wonderful city any day of the year.
Apologies, Kay. As you note, "everyone" thinks of it as Waco. But I am glad to have correct information.
There's an interesting book that delves into some of the issues going on, in Texas. We read it in our book group, in the last year or two. It's called Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith by Jon Krakauer. They really don't like women to speak their own minds.
I have a Mormon friend, but she isn't anything like the people described in the book.
I believe that the girls who are under age do need to be protected, but I also believe in freedom of religion. If we take it upon ourselves to interfere in the doctrines and practices of ANY religios group, then NONE of OUR doctrines and practices are safe either.
I have to say that those girls looked cleaner and healthier than some of the "average" young girls I see walking the streets.
And Dawn, I read "Under the Banner of Heaven", too. It was very intriguing.
I believe in and support freedom of religion. It worries and angers me though, when a religious group deems itself above the law. It's one thing to worship as one wishes, but when children are being force into sexual relations and abused, it's no longer a matter of religion in my mind.
It never ceases to amaze me how the human mind can be manipulated to the point of brainwashing. Being the parent of a little girl, I cannot fathom what these parents do to their children. These girls may look neat and clean on the outside, but the anguish they must feel inside saddens me greatly. If these accusations are true, these poor girls have a very hard journey ahead of them. How dare these people treat their children in such a manner. I am so glad one of the members, whether it be a child or an adult, had the courage to call out for help. I only hope she is okay. I can just imagine how those members, who are less than loyal to this "sick" group of people, may be treated.
Ginny, please know I wasn't picking at you  ...it's kind of sad that even today, my children remember our not allowing them to answer the telephone during that time because it was usually a reporter from DC, or New Zealand, or England, etc. (My husband's name is the same as his dad's.)
I feel bad for the citizens of Eldorado to have this focus placed upon them - it's almost an admonishment - "this was going on, so why didn't you do something?", etc. I know that feeling.
Oh, I didn't think you were, Kay. I was truly pleased to have accurate information, which I have relayed to my son. It's a darned shame that your town and particularly your family had so many problems because of the media's inaccuracy and their snatching at a dramatic sounding name. Waco sounds so much more "western" and dramatic than "Elk City".
With this current event, it isn't in the city of eldorado, it is out of the city limits on a large plot of land. If i recall correctly several people tried to stop them from purchasing the land. It isn't like this happened in the school, or at the courthouse, they are rural and keep to themselves.
It is just crazy though!
It breaks my heart to see those greiving young mothers facing the possibility of having their children taken from them and placed in an already overburdened foster care system. That could be setting the children up for abuse that way, too. And what about the effect it will have on the little ones, being separated from their Mamas? As it is, they must wonder what is happening and why they can't see their Dads.
I heard on TV today that the call that they THOUGHT came from a sixteen y/o girl, tipping the authorities off to supposed abuse was instead a 30 something young woman, and may have been a hoax? Has anyone else heard this? If so, isn't this another case of government interference and over-reaction? I'll bet they wouldn't be so quick to act against a Muslim encampment under similar circumstances.
Hol, what do you mean by a "Muslim encampment"? A Muslim community somewhere in the U.S.? Frankly, if there were any complaints of abuse in a Muslim area I would bet the local, state and federal authorities would be all over them in a New York minute. It wouldn't take multiple phone calls over a two year period, which is reported as what happened in this instance.
I have been following this event, and I have a lot of doubts and questions. I wondered from the beginning about the phone call or phone calls. It seems odd that the girl who made the calls (if she exists) hasn't come forward. It has been reported that the calls from this girl came over a two year period. I find that really strange - that it took two years before action was taken on a possible child abuse situation, for one thing; and if this girl could get to a phone and make calls, why didn't she identify herself in the calls, or make arrangements to be found by the authorities. A lot of this isn't making a whole lot of sense to me.
I'm not at all thrilled by the taking of young children from their mothers. If the mother is of legal age (and I believe most of them are), why should she be separated from her children, or her children from her? There is some talk about one man fathering children with several different mothers, children being raised by a group of mothers who are all in relationship with the father - to which I am inclined to say, so what?
I agree, Hol, that putting these children into the foster care system would be disastrous for the children. And I don't see any real need to do that. I've read (and made) the argument that this group "brain washes" the children and that this might be child abuse. Well, most religious groups "brain wash" their children. The Hasidic communities in New York, as one example, work very hard to keep their children from contact with secular, non-Jewish and non-Hasidic life, make them dress differently from the rest of us, and raise them in what I personally would consider a very narrow and restrictive form of Judaism. No one has ever suggested taking these children away from their parents.
I spent a number of years working for an interfaith organization, specifically in Jewish-Christian relations for some time, and did a lot of reaning and learning about cults. I learned that the line between cult, sect, and main-stream religion is more of history and numbers than anything else. The Quakers were originally a "sect", and a very persecuted group in England and in large parts of the American colonies. But no one today would consider them anything but a mainstream religion. Mormonism was itself a sect in its beginnings, and is now accepted as pretty much a main-stream religion. (And, of course, the main Mormon body has said that polygamy is not acceptable and has denounced the polygamist offshoots.)
The issue of under age girls being coerced or forced into intimate relationships is a whole other thing and is, of course, very very wrong. But I'm not clear what that has to do with infants and young children, or why that justifies keeping the children and their mothers apart.
There are reports of physical examinations of some of the girls showing that girls of 16 or 17 have given birth at least a few years previously, and if true, that, of course, is both wrong and illegal. But again, what does that have to do with keeping infants, toddlers, and young children separated from their mothers and maybe putting them into the foster care system?
I have a strong feeling that over the next few weeks a lot of things are going to come out that will leave the authorities in this situation with a whole lot of egg on their collective faces.
No matter what we, individually or as a society, may think of polygamy, as long as the relationships are "spiritual marriage" and not actual marriages performed by some legal authority, it is just a commune style of living. And when the relationships don't involve underage girls, it really isn't a legal or criminal matter. Most of our society didn't approve of the communes in the 1960s, what with "free love" and what was considered then and is still considered sexual immorality. But I don't recall much effort to take children in the communes away from their mothers.
Excellent points, Ginny. And I guess that I should have worded that differently. I meant that if the case involved a religious affiliation other than one that flies under the Christian banner, would the government be so quick to act so drastically? You use the Hasidic Jews as a good example. It is no secret that Christianity is, and has been under attack for many years now. If it were a group of a different, more "sensitive" stripe, by today's standards, I believe that there would be more of a "wait and see" attitude, in the name of PC. Louis Farakan would be all over that.
I believe that the age of consent for girls in Utah is 14. I believe that this group relocated from the Arizona/Utah border. I also feel like you do; this group seems to work well together, and there seems to be a genuine love and caring among the women and their children. The children look well cared for. My concern is that the Moms and children have been SO sheltered from the outside world that this is a terrible shock for them. And for these little children, that is all they have known. My other concern is that, under the BEST of circumstances, people are cleared to become foster parents who never should have been. Now that there is such a crushing need, I'm afraid that there will be haste in certifying more foster parents or group homes. My own two adoptive sons survived abuse foster situations, after being removed from an abusive "mother and her boyfriend" situation.
These woman look so SAD. It woulsd seem that they have been singled out. They seem self-sufficient in that they grow and produce their own food, and clothing, and educate their own children. The Amish do basically the same thing, and they are left alone.
I just have real issues with government interference in a group's right to worship. If it were a Satanic coven, and they were sacrificing children, that would be a different story. I have believed for a while that the Federal government is intent on taking away parental rights. Having a special needs child, I have witnessed this first hand in dealing with the public school department and their "Special Ed" department. We took our case to the Federal court and won, but at a HUG hit to our pocketbook.
I would be frantic if my children were seized and removed from me.
Hol, I don't agree with you that Christianity has been under attack, but that's a different topic. If you want to start a thread, I will happily discuss this question with you.
The reason the infants were removed too, was simply if a child in a home of 3 kids was abused, they would remove all the children. In this case, they all live together and it is hard to tell which "parent" is the abuser and how you protect them.
Simply the law in texas is age 17 with a 3 year gap. Meaning that if a 17 year old and a 20 year old have sex it is still illegal.
My understaning is there have been calls and complaints for 2 years, but nothing worth acting on. This last bunch of calls about the pg girl were recent and gave enough credibility to get a warrant. There I think are currently 6-10 girls who are under 14 that are pregant. By texas laws that is from rape. Maybe other states don't feel that way, but they don't live in another state, they moved to TEXAS. The other report I heard is that the orginal girl called several times, but the last time she said, no no, don't come I'm okay.
Also HOL the calls from outside is a theory that the sect has thrown out there, but there is no proof of that either.
The hard part is simply, cps has a tough job, if you suspect children are being treated poorly that is just tough, but if you suspect that a lwa is being broken you can remove kids. Kids never want to leave their parents, even the worstly abused ones, at least they know what to expect at home. Children love so fully and so blindly.
And Hol you stated "I would be frantic if my children were seized and removed from me.". Every mother feels this way, even the ones who are abusing their children. Most abusers don't feel like what they are doing is wrong, it is just discpline.
Thanks for the info on Texas laws, Kaye. And, you make good points about the feelings of mothers who are child abusers. Sadly, all to often children who are being abused would still rather be with the abusing parent than separated from that parent.
I still think in the end there is going to be a lot of fallout on the authorities. While we certainly don't know everything, I do wonder whether there was sufficient foresight for what they would do with those children.
This isn't an issue of religious freedom or persecution over lifestyle choices. It's about child abuse. Adults having sex with children is against the law. Whenever there are allegations of abuse, all the children in the household are removed until the truth can be sorted out.
In this case, unfortunately there are lots of children and adults involved, but the rules apply the same way.
Many of these mothers are refusing to even identify their own children simply stating 'they all are ours'. They are also refusing to give their full names and ages.
But when you have obviously pregnant underage girls, do they give them back to the mother who possibly allowed the child to have sex or at the very least turned their head and ignored it?
That's what this case is about.
Yes, from what I've read, the mothers are refusing to give their names or produce identification. I can understand why the court is refusing to return children to mothers who won't identify themselves. And given the declarations that "they all are ours", I can also understand the court's order for DNA tests. This is a real mess, and is going to get messier. There are 416 children involved, most of them under the age of 10 or 12. I feel so sorry for these children - their lives are disrupted and going to be even more so as this goes on. These children have been living in a commune type situation all their lives, with hundreds of half-brothers and sisters - to split them up and send them by ones and twos to foster homes (assuming they can find enough foster homes) and away from everything they know as family will be terrible for the children.
I don't think there are any easy answers or easy solutions to this situation. I just wish I had more confidence that the authorities had given it careful thought and planned better for this situation. I think it was inevitable that when they went in they would be removing many, if not all of the chidren, but did they think that through carefully and plan on what to do with them after they removed them? That the mothers are not cooperating is certainly not helping the children, but that the mothers are not cooperating should hardly be surprising.
And given that they aren't cooperating is exactly the reason why they are not being allowed to see the children. The only thing that is different about this case from any other alleged child abuse case is the sheer volume of children involved. No one would even question the government's/CPS' actions if it were just a few children involved.
There are also reports starting to come out from young men ages 18 or so talking about being forced to have sex with these young girls to impregnate them or to 'help them become women'.
Again, no one would hesitate to commend the government or CPS for taking childern away from a situation like that if there were just a few children involved.
So the questions becomes, why would the rules change simply because of the volume of children involved? And no one is doubting this will be traumatic to the children. Being removed from an abusive situation is traumatic on any child.
Ditto, Ann. Yes, it's traumatic for these children to be pulled away from the only world they've known. Yet, it's a world were children have been exploited and abused. A world were human rights have been denied. A world of mind control and forced submission.
I applaud the local authorities for keeping a watchful eye on this group and removing the children from this environment. I understand some of the women said they'd do anything to get their children back, including leave the world of the compound. If nothing else comes of this, at least organizations like this will get the message that they are not above the law. In this country, they will be held accountable and will pay the consequences for their actions of abuse.
Don't you think there is some merit to not allowing the mothers to have them if the mothers were allowing this to happen?
I am inclined to think so, Vicki.
Since reading about this commune and it's practices, I've been giving more thought to the concept of mind control. I will admit, I do not understand all the dynamics of brainwashing, but I do tend to believe it can happen. People choosing mass suicide comes to mind. If mind control is a reality and if individuals in a group such as this compound can be brainwashed, what then can be said about accountability?
I think I'm going off track. In my heart I feel we all know right from wrong. I'd like to believe that a force stronger than ourselves, stronger than man, (for me this is God) speaks the truth in our hearts. If this is true, I believe even the women in this compound would have a sense of what is right for their children. Behind the fear or even denial, they know the truth. So in my mind, yes the women are accountable. As mothers, isn't human nature to protect our young ones?
Regardless of the issue of brainwashing, these people have broken the laws. I have to wonder, if they believe the outsiders are evil, how do they perceive our laws? Do they make up their own based on their beliefs? If so this group is dangerous in more than one respect.
i thought you might be interested in this article. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5722975.html
they are also reporting that CPS is working hard to keep true siblings together and mothers with their children under the age of 2 together
El Dorado, TX
"The six-acre campus has big oak trees shading lush green lawns leading to Chocolate Bayou."
ROFL...this is my area. Chocolate is in the name because it is so thick with mud you can't see through it. This is a very industrial area, where the mosquitos are big and the air smells. Which is fine...they just make it sound so glamourous!
I have to say, I know this is a lot of kids, but Texas is a big state, we really do have lots of large facilites around the state. It will still be a shock for them. And school...wow it only makes sense, but these poor kids, they are going to be exposed to so much. I would think finding a place that "homeschooled" would be a much better fit for them, at least in the interim. With a step like this taken, it sure doesn't sound like they plan on returning these kids. Also I wonder if the sect will want them back now that they have been "in" the world.
48 of the mothers filed an appeal. According to the NY Times: A Texas state court of appeals ruled Thursday afternoon that the state of Texas had no right to seize more than 400 children from a polygamist ranch in Eldorado, in the western part of the state, because there was not sufficient proof that they were in immediate danger.
Here is the link to the full opinion, with a link to the Court's ruling. NYTimes. In essence, the Court ruled that the protective services agency did not meet the guidelines of the statute governing removal of children from their parents. I thought something like this would happen once it got out of the local court.
Actually, from my CPS training. They would not and /or should not have... swooped in and removed the children unless they were in immediate danger. Children are a possession and until clear abuse, physical neglect, medical neglect can be documented, you can not remove a child from their parent just because you "feel" it is the right thing to do.
They should have/would have opened an investigation, they would have spoken to the 460 children, the grown men and grown women. Then they would have compiled a report and presented it to the attorney(s) that over sees the CPS in that area, he/she/they would have decided to take the findings forward or close the case. If the finding was to move forward they would have then taken the records to a judge who would have after reading through the allegations would have decided to have the "men" in the family, ordered to leave the "ranch", or they would have removed the children suspected of being abused (they do not always go in and remove all children, it depends on the allegations by the way) while they investigated further into the allegations. He would have ordered DNA testing, GYNO exams, general physicals, etc.. Once those had been done, processed then they would have brought the families in to hear the charges/findings. At which time the judge would have ordered them to make changes to meet the state standards of protection and care. Counseling for example.. If Rape had been found, the perpetrator(s) of the rapes(s) would have been issued a warrant and then detained for a separate hearing. Any where in there if they felt the children were under immediate danger, (death, physical, medical neglect) they could have requested an emergency removal from the judge.
The phone call should have brought a couple of police officers and a CPS worker to the "ranch". No immediate danger, no one taken into custody. Possible investigation into the allegations made in the phone call. But not the removal of 460 children from their mothers on an assumption that they are "all" being forced to have sex with old men. Unless they have pictures of mass orgies we aren't being told about, video footage, something concrete, they had no grounds to remove those children. I don't care if every 17 year old on that compound/ranch is pregnant that isn't grounds for what they have done. The law is based on facts not assumptions...
It isn't uncommon in this area to see 13-18 year olds pregnant. There is are three JR high girls, one in 6th grade that have babies, as in already delivered them... My girls are in school with the 6th graders sister... Do you think CPS will remove them from their parents? I mean she is 12 years old and a mother..... She (her mother) is raising the baby. The father is in 7th grade. How nuts is that???
Anyway, If they need to investigate this family they need to do it under the same laws they use for the rest of us and if they had, this case wouldn't be getting over turned. Whether their life style is wrong or not is a mute point. I don't want them coming into my home and telling me I have to allow my husband to have five wives, and I am not going into theirs and telling them that I would be D**NED.
I am a firm believer that we all are brain washed.. Just over different things at different levels.. I could explain more but I have ranted long enough...
I am saddened by the ruling. I think mother's allowing their underage children to have sex with grown men constitutes abuse. BUT, I don't think we will ever have all the facts or know all the details.
I have read that out of the 400 (to 463, have yet to hear the same number from anyone) children removed. Only 31 of the 400/463 were supposed apparent/proof of the sexual abuse going on at the "ranch", believed to be mothers or pregnant prior to the age of consent (17). These 31 were believed to be minors on the day of the raid, and even though the CPS was presented with proof (drivers license, birth certificates, ss numbers, the word of their mothers, the same proof we use) they choose to ignore the paper work because the "girls" presented as minors and were detained into foster care. They weren't lying about their ages, they were giving their ages and CPS assumed they were lying because of the way they appeared. 26 of the 31 are now considered "disputed minors". 15 of the 26 presented documentation proving they were adults prior to the cases being brought against the family.
One woman, for example, Leona Allred, is actually 27 years old, the mother of a 15 month old child and she was detained in protective custody in a home for unwed mothers with her child, despite the fact that (per her attorney) she had presented them with her Texas drivers license and birth certificate prior to them taking her into custody. There are several other women made reference to in the articles I read, that were denied their freedom because they believed they were lying about their ages to prevent charges for the family.
These numbers would imply that 5 girls out of 460/463 are 17 or younger have been or currently are pregnant, that would be no different then any other town, in any other state, with any religious base. They were/are assuming these girls were impregnated by older men. This would also imply that 429 children, from what I have read over half of them being under the age of five (I believe it was) have been living in limbo and fear since April 3rd over assumptions. Which is so against the by laws of CPS.
I have also read that not all of the families are practicing polygamist, they currently live in the "family" on the "ranch" because of the "protection", "life" the living standards of the "ranch" give (gave) their children from the outside world. That there were not significant findings that the young children were physically, medically neglect or abused. They removed children from mothers that did not have children with in the questioned age of sexual abuse, implying they would allow their children to be abused one day, assumption. They detained adults as children, assumption. They have based this whole case off of assumptions, assumptions of Rape, assumptions of abuse, assumptions of under age pregnancies. All because of an anonymous phone call from somewhere stating they were someone living at the "ranch" and that they were being forced into a relationship with an older man. Yet in nearly two months of investigation not one man has been brought up on charges of improper conduct with a child, not one of the mothers has been charged with neglect or abuse.
To me, this is like finding out that your neighbor, step is up a bit, goes to your church and impregnated his step daughter and your children being removed from you because you lived in the same block, neighborhood, town, and you allowed your child to be in the same place as him.
My Pastors wife was raised Mennonite and they do not discuss their sex lives with each other and they do not judge the living situations of each other. Gossip after all is one of the worst sins a person can commit. So it wouldn't surprise me if many of these women didn't realize what was going on in the other homes, especially the ones that were not born into this "religious sect". Polygamy does not automatically imply that young girls are forced to have sex with old(er) men. and Many religions still obied by the arranged marriage laws, in some the children are "spiritually married" from birth.
My Primary Physician and his wife were to be married when his wife was born, the family had arranged their marriage at that time. They grew up knowing they would be married one day and they conducted their lives that way. They never even went on a date prior to their marriage. They had family gatherings regularly but nothing private. They married knowing they were to be together forever and then they fell in love with each other.
This is a book. Basically, I want to say, we don't live at the "ranch", we don't know how they conduct their "sect". Apparently, the CPS has more explaining to do then the 200+ mothers, that have not had physical custody of their 400/463 children in nearly 2 months, do, or the case would have not been taken to the appeals court before it was even heard.
as always, there are two sides to every story..
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5797658.html
The Texas Supreme Court has upheld the Appeals Court ruling that the Texas Dep. of Family and Protective Services overstepped in removing the children. NYTimes
Some legal pundits commenting on NPR and KYW speculate that this ruling only applies to the 124 children of the 38 mothers who filed the appeal with the Appeals Court.
It is now back in the hands of the local court, which is bound by the Texas Supreme Court's ruling. It will be interesting to see what happens next. I am guessing that if most of the children are not returned to their mothers fairly quickly, another appeal will be filed.
I'm not surprised by this ruling. While I appreciate the dangers to young women in polygamous structures, I do think the authorities over-reacted - especially when it turned out that the initial phone calls that they said justified their actions turned out to be a hoax. Certainly the children age 10 and under were/are in no immediate danger, no matter whether they live in polygamous or monogamous households. To remove all of the children was, in my opinion, excessive, especially when, as both the Appeals Court and Supreme Court pointed out, the Department's rules offered several alternative actions that would have provided any protection that might be needed.
FLDS promises to stop marrying underage girls
The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints made the startling announcement Monday that it will no longer allow underage girls to marry adults within their sect.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5815364.html
hmmm....wonder why they felt the need to announce this?
and no abuse was taking place?
FLDS promises to stop marrying underage girls
"The church believes in purity, cleanliness and innocence, and our children and families are the cornerstone of our lives and religion," Willie Jessop said. "We hope this modest clarification will alleviate recent concerns and allow this church and its families to reside in peace among its neighbors."
Here is a link to the whole, "announcement".
UNCUT: FLDS Polygamist church says no to underage marriage
I am not hearing it as an omission of guilt, but a clarification of their stance on marriage. Which Willie Jessup states is a clarification not only during the statement but also during the question/answer part of the interview. So the original article may state that, "the FLDS is announcing that they will no longer allow underage marriage to adults with in their sect", but those, however, are not the words coming out of Willie Jessup's mouth.
Two sides to every story is true enough. Look into the connection of Carolyn Jessup and Flora Jessup, the woman that allegedly tipped off the Texas Rangers to the supposed abuse of "Sarah Barlow". These ladies among other things have placed claims on the sect for killing their youth and having mass burial grounds on the "ranch". Which is the comment Willie Jessup makes about the Rangers bringing in cadaver dogs searching out the properties for dead bodies, buried in flower beds.
Look into the fact that the cell phone had been traced back to Courtney Swinton, the brother of Rozita Swinton, in Colorado, prior to the raid. Rozita Swinton has been convicted of at least three other false claims of abuse against other denominations of churches, not just the FLDS.
Look up, Rozita Swinton, no way involved with the FLDS, yet they found documentation in her home that would only be privy to someone in the FLDS community. She had the names and contact information of ex-members, information that would not be public information. How and why would she have this information??
The Texas Rangers, knowing Ms Swintons involvement did not release the fact that the call was a hoax, until the Federal Government was getting ready to go after Ms. Swinton on other charges, on calls made to other shelters, after the raid in Texas had already happened. Possibly because the calls to Ms. Jessup would show up on the phone records for the phone that was in the possession of and had been used in the act of reporting false abuse calls by Ms. Swinton in the past?? The man Dale Barlow that "Sarah Barlow" had claimed to be in a forced marriage with wasn't even from Texas, they had interviewed him prior to the raid, and did not press charges on him?
I also find it a bit odd, that a Sheriff Doran reported in an interview that they have had an informant living in on the "ranch" for four years. The spiritual marriages of 460 children, and the hundreds of pregnant teens that would constitute this style of raid, must have been well hidden from the informant if it took a hoax call of abuse to actually obtain a warrant? I mean really. With 460 (+) children this isn't a small compound, this is a community. This would be like all of the parents of a local high school having their children taken and being brought up on charges because five "allowed" their children to become pregnant.
According to my reading, PDF file of the Bishops list, which were seized in the raid, these records would indicate to me that this wide spread forced marriage and pregnancy thing has been a tad over exaggerated by the media. These marital records have major significance to the group and would contain accurate information, per their belief structure. Multiple wives, MANY children, those records would be sacred, thus no omissions. No different then a record of marriage, birth or baptism/dedication/catechism, etc would be to any other denomination. They most surely didn't know that they would be used against them a year later to try to prove abuse.. The five victims of forced marriage/ underage sex are, supposedly listed on these records, except for one who was not married in 2007 when those records were made, but is over the age of 17 and married to a man that is in his early 20's.. I only came across a handful of teen age girls married to older men, and if they were married prior to September 2005, when the laws on the age of consent in Texas were changed from 14 to 17, they are exempt from this action, because you are accountable for the laws of the time you are committing a "crime". I also noted, that this whole, you have to have as many children as God has you have not to be completely true. Mrs, Duggar is a prime example of the number of children these women should have and this is not the case in many of the records.
This whole case has been poorly handled and to me it seems like a modern day witch hunt.
I hope that it is understood that the FLDS, are not the only polygamist sect living with in the United states. Some Muslims groups practice polygamy too, and there are "Christian" groups that practice polygamy, among others that are not affiliated with a spiritual belief structure that encourages/demands the life style, this is one of those not so well hidden American truths that do not happen in our neighborhoods, or do they??
I am not pro polygamy but I am anti ripping children out of the hands of their mothers for no due cause, keeping them from their mothers for nearly 90 days, trumped up charges for a warrant, and in turn lying to cover your rears in the end. All while claiming that these children "some day" will be forced into an arranged marriage, and forced to "some day" have sex with a sick old man.. The law is supposed to protects us from the opinion of case workers, however if they can detain kids on an "some day" allegation, as they apparently tried to do in this case, we are all in trouble.
|
Members
