"Light. Flexible. Secure. Pure Publishing."
(NucleusCMS)
- The Mothership
- The old Wordpress site
- Our RSS feed
-
Recent comments RSS feed
Version: 1.0
(July 25, 2005)
I guess this is an improvement, given that the 15th anniversary of the raid on the Branch Davidian compound is upon us. At least we didn't burn them all to death.
I'm torn. This mess needs to be broken up; OTOH I don't think it is necessary to take all these kids from their mothers. From their fathers, or father - sure.
You are in charge - what do you do?
Apr 18, 2008, 07:52:03 Turbulence wrote:
I'd take the kids away from their mothers and fathers. The mothers are just as guilty as the fathers: they knew their kids were being groomed for massive abuse and they didn't leave. Is that fair to them given that they have a lot less power and a lot fewer options than the fathers? No, of course not. But life's not fair. If you frack up at childrearing on this epic a scale, you don't get to keep your kids. The truth is, we pull kids out of urban homes for far less. If you don't separate the mothers from the kids, I promise you, in a week or two, the mothers will be back at a sister compound with their kids, in the exact same state they were in before.
I strongly recommend reading "Under the banner of Heaven": it's an engaging and fascinating look at how these FLDS communities operate. Survivors who have escaped from these communities describe a great deal of sexual abuse.
I don't think that polygamists per se are all child abusers, but I do think that most people can't be trusted with the near God-like powers that high status men in these compounds have. They are subject to no law: they can mutilate and beat and rape and kill "their" women and children with zero consequences whatsoever. And they do just that.
Apr 18, 2008, 08:32:02 kenB wrote:
[i]If you frack up at childrearing on this epic a scale, [b]you don't get to keep your kids.[/b] [/i]
Hmmm, I think this is maybe the wrong way to look at the question -- I think it's not a matter of what the parents *get* to do, but what's best for the children. That's a difficult question to answer without knowing a lot more about the details of their situation.
[i]The truth is, we pull kids out of urban homes for far less[/i]
That is probably true, but it doesn't mean it's a good thing to do.
Apr 18, 2008, 09:11:38 Turbulence wrote:
kenB, I agree that the best interests of the children should be the fundamental criteria. I was trying to suggest though that any such analysis will lead to the mothers losing custody of their children. I spoke poorly in my anger. These people are participating in a conspiracy to abuse children (and adults!) while obstructing justice. I don't see how willful participation in such a conspiracy can be congruent with best interest of any child.
Apr 18, 2008, 10:46:02 kenB wrote:
You may be right, I confess I haven't really read much beyond the headlines. I guess I was inclined to see the mothers more as victims than perpetrators in this situation, but in the case where an entire (sub)culture seems to be at fault, it's hard for me to decide how to apportion blame.
Anyway, I just always react negatively to children being separated from their parents, even though it's sometimes for the best.
Apr 18, 2008, 11:04:15 OCSteve wrote:
Turb: [i]…they knew their kids were being groomed for massive abuse and they didn't leave.[/i]
Could they leave? I mean geography (isolation), money, chance of being caught and consequences….
As I said from the start I’m torn here. My dad was an ass - I readily survived losing him as a child. My mom? No way. Call it sexist but I do believe there is a big difference. A mom will do what she has to, to protect her kids and I think that has to be considered.
Is 400+ kids in foster care really the best idea here?
Apr 18, 2008, 11:45:57 Turbulence wrote:
[i]Anyway, I just always react negatively to children being separated from their parents, even though it's sometimes for the best.[/i]
Fair enough. Separation is often a bad idea and we should be wary of it.
[i]Could they leave? I mean geography (isolation), money, chance of being caught and consequences….[/i]
Without their husbands? Almost certainly not. That's why I said it is not fair to them. That would be a real problem if their needs were paramount as opposed to the children's. I suspect though that if they had the option to leave, they would choose not to. We're talking about people who have been brought up from day one in this belief system: they literally can't imagine life outside the community. Moreover, they've been socialized to believe that the world outside is irredeemably corrupt and that to leave the community or disobey the leader ensures damnation in hell.
These people are enslaved, physically, mentally, and culturally. Relocating them geographically cannot break the fetters in their mind: they will carry those chains wherever you take them, and they will imbue their children with this mental bondage, ensuring that these communities will have a ready stream of adherents in the next generation.
[i]Is 400+ kids in foster care really the best idea here?[/i]
If the government knew that one single child was being held by a group that was conspiring to rape and prostitute them once they reached the ripe old age of twelve, do you think foster care would be acceptable? If so, then surely the number of children shouldn't change the equation: we cannot surrender our obligations simply because criminals have worked hard to produce a vast stream of victims. I'm open to suggestions, but I don't see better options.
[b]Edited to convert HTML to BBCode[/b]
Apr 18, 2008, 11:49:49 Turbulence wrote:
By the way, I don't think anything I'm proposing will happen. My best guess is that there will be a media circus, a tiny handful of men will be investigated and maybe even charged, and the great majority of the children will be sent back to their families. I also predict that there will be a disgusting amount of support for the polygamists in the popular media.
Apr 18, 2008, 13:45:57 DaveC wrote:
I'm thinking that the test here is whether at any point, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...] the kids can make a decision to leave on their own.[/url] Generally there are problems with doing this at an early age, when they cannot possibly support themselves. I'm not a big supporter of arranged marriage, in any case.
Apr 18, 2008, 22:46:54 OCSteve wrote:
The San Angelo Standard Times had reporters kind of live-blogging the hearing. It’s an absolute zoo. Their site seems to be down but most of it was posted at Patterico’s.
http://patterico.com/2008/0...
[i]the witness is saying that things got “more scary” about 10 a.m. Friday on the ranch. There appeared to be a “situation of a huge magnitude,” with a great many officers around.
She says she heard there were men in trees with night-vision goggles. Asked about being afraid, she says men were videotaping her and the children, and men appeared to be posted at every entrance and around the buildings. It’s a feeling of being unsafe, she says.
Law enforcement had begun mobilizing a SWAT team and a tank. Law enforcement, she says, told her, “We are here to keep you safe, and we can’t do that when it’s dark.” [/i]
Jeeze. How close did they come to another Branch Davidian?