04-16-2008, 06:03 PM
Quote:I see the assumption here of guilt for all the parents of this community. The State has seized all the children from their parents on the assumption of guilt. The language used by the State is that this is a dangerous environment for children, and the intent from the beginning was to seize the children and put them up for adoption and foster care. It was not as you characterize a spur of the moment thing because they saw some young pregnant girls. This was a well planned out action, where all the ducks were in a row. I think they just needed a pretext, and the alleged phone call was the trigger.
If you have any evidence that the initial phone calls were not completely genuine, please bring it forth. If those were fraudulent, I would turn to your side of the argument and call the raid improper. I have seen no such evidence, so my position is as it stands.
Even if this was a planned action (and I think they did have plans to do such an operation beforehand) I just don't see what step of the operation was unjustified based on the facts in hand at that moment. So that's my question for you: regardless of any nefarious motives, whatever was in hearts and minds, what actions were taken by the authorities that were not merited by the facts plainly in evidence?
Quote: I agree with the State intervention in that they should question the legality of the "spiritual marriages" as polygamy, and also that this is performed on under aged girls. If they had served each of the parents with warrants based on probable cause and treated each family individually, then I wouldn't have a single issue with this case. Imagine if this were an native tribe practicing long held tribal traditions (including marriage of their 14 yr old girls), and the white man swept in an took all the children from the tribe to be adopted by white families.
Another bad analogy, unnecessarily loading the issue with racial overtones. Let's try one of mine.
Let's say a policeman enters a house from which has issued a call for help. The caller can't be found, but the policeman can't help noticing a man beating a child. The man claims that it is his religious right to do so. The policeman sensibly arrests the man and puts the child in the care of the State until things get resolved.
Now what if there are twenty families living at this house, all of which profess the same religion? There is evidence that there are several beaten children across different family groups. Some people who have left the house earlier claim this happens all the time. Should the authorities remove all the children? Is this too dangerous an environment? I'd say yes. In fact, I'd say they have no choice in the matter at all.