Eldorado, Texas Intervention

[imp]

For those of you not so remotely located as to be unaware of the recent government raid on the "polygamist compound" in Texas, here are a few thoughts.

 

Of 400+ minors (children) removed to "protective custody", one can assume many were not very young, but rather young adults still technically minors. These young people grew up in an out-of-societal existence, probably were free to roam the 1700 acre compound at will, go fishing or biking, swim, play games, and generally be a part of a family, whether that family be considered "normal" by traditional definition.

 

These children now will experience, no matter how carefully and orchestrated their "captors" are, being essentially imprisoned like convicts.

 

What are your thoughts regarding these children, and their ultimate final development into useful parts of society? imp

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'd be more comfortable passing judgment if someone could find out what was actually going on at their compound and if they were actually being abused. It's hard to tell right now.

[Phi for All]

Of 400+ minors (children) removed to "protective custody", one can assume many were not very young, but rather young adults still technically minors. These young people grew up in an out-of-societal existence, probably were free to roam the 1700 acre compound at will, go fishing or biking, swim, play games, and generally be a part of a family, whether that family be considered "normal" by traditional definition.

 

These children now will experience, no matter how carefully and orchestrated their "captors" are, being essentially imprisoned like convicts.

You go from the bolded assumptions to the bolded conclusion a little too quickly, imo. As Cap'n said, it's still evidence gathering time.

[tvp45]

For those of you not so remotely located as to be unaware of the recent government raid on the "polygamist compound" in Texas, here are a few thoughts.

 

Of 400+ minors (children) removed to "protective custody", one can assume many were not very young, but rather young adults still technically minors. These young people grew up in an out-of-societal existence, probably were free to roam the 1700 acre compound at will, go fishing or biking, swim, play games, and generally be a part of a family, whether that family be considered "normal" by traditional definition.

 

These children now will experience, no matter how carefully and orchestrated their "captors" are, being essentially imprisoned like convicts.

 

What are your thoughts regarding these children, and their ultimate final development into useful parts of society? imp

 

No, their existence is nothing like that of a convict.

[Pangloss]

I think it's a very dicey and difficult subject to fully grok, and I think it raises major issues with society at large. It will be interesting to see if society steps up and looks at those questions seriously, or if this just fades to the background at the end of the news cycle, as I suspect it will.

 

It's another in a long chain of recent stories questioning the legitimacy of marriage as a legal entity.

 

It's another in a long chain of recent stories questioning the interface between parental rights (to raise children as they see fit) and society's fluctuating opinion of what constitutes abuse.

 

And it's another in a long chain of recent stories questioning religious freedom.

 

I saw a great story on ABC's Nightline last night where they interviewed the mothers of those children. It was a typical media circus, and lawyers for the church were actually landing on an airstrip in the background while the cameras were rolling on the moms! The most revealing part of the story was when the reporter asked the women questions like "how old were YOU when you got married", and the women would suddenly clam up and refuse to talk. Very interesting.

 

But I think society needs to confront these issues, not continue to tuck them away and ignore them like they don't exist.

[Realitycheck]

Throwing aside legal quandaries, I think it's pretty safe to assume that polygamy occurred. I don't really feel like making another argument against religion today, but who wants to be a bull and who wants to be a wolf? Aside from the position that thou shalt not reproduce more than you can support, It's kind of a poll.

[CDarwin]

I think it's a very dicey and difficult subject to fully grok, and I think it raises major issues with society at large. It will be interesting to see if society steps up and looks at those questions seriously, or if this just fades to the background at the end of the news cycle, as I suspect it will.

 

It's another in a long chain of recent stories questioning the legitimacy of marriage as a legal entity.

 

It's another in a long chain of recent stories questioning the interface between parental rights (to raise children as they see fit) and society's fluctuating opinion of what constitutes abuse.

 

And it's another in a long chain of recent stories questioning religious freedom.

 

I wouldn't say there is anything particularly 'recent' about it. This is a society enforcing its cultural norms. It's a process as old as dirt. In the West we seem to like to think of ourselves as past 'irrational' traditionalism but it's as endemic in our culture as it is anywhere. What most makes this an issue is that it bumps up against another cherished Western value, individualism and individual sovereignty.

[ecoli]

I don't think polygamy should be illegal, as long as no rights are violated. (Forced marriage, etc).

 

OTOH, I don't really think the state should be involved in marriage at all.

[john5746]

What are your thoughts regarding these children, and their ultimate final development into useful parts of society? imp

 

I think that some will eventually fit into society better than they would have living in that commune, while some will endure hardships. I am sure many of the slaves suffered more after being free than before, even in the North - but the cycle had to be broken.

 

 

I don't think polygamy should be illegal, as long as no rights are violated. (Forced marriage, etc).

 

OTOH, I don't really think the state should be involved in marriage at all.

 

Marriage is a legal partnership between two adults to share resources and raise children. This is a foundation of society, so society does have an interest in keeping these partnerships and settling disputes. I disagree with polygamy, I think it complicates the issue and is too easily used to degrade women's rights. I understand that men like to spread their seed, but that doesn't make it best for society. My problem in this particular case though is more to do with the cult mentality. I can see how a woman would feel afraid to leave - what choice does she have? Her whole world as she knows it is in there, she has no tools for survival outside of that place, especially for her children. It is akin to saying that the poor choose to be that way. Some have no choice.

 

 

 

And it's another in a long chain of recent stories questioning religious freedom.

 

Religious freedom should just be about belief. You are free to believe whatever you want, but not free to do whatever you want. Religion should get no preference when it comes to the rights and well-being of others. If it is OK to deny medical treatment to a minor for religious reasons, then it must be OK for a Parent to deny their child medical treatment period.

[Pangloss]

That's an interesting way of looking at the problem, separating actions from beliefs. Of course it's almost impossible to conceive of how the freedom to go to church on Sunday could be curtailed without violating the principle of religious freedom, but in terms of offering a guideline for locating a starting point for regulation, that would seem to be a helpful signpost.

 

Of course there is a legal aspect to all of this that doesn't question anything, which is the legal issue that the state of Texas is now wrangling with, and that is the question of abuse of minors. If they have evidence that children were being sexually abused, then presumably the state's statute does not protect religious members from prosecution for that abuse. The question will be whether the evidence is there to convict or not, and that's all there is to it.

 

But of course in the real world perception affects everything, and I think these issues should come up and be debated. I don't see what's wrong with multiple-partner marriage, and I think 14 or 15 is old enough in some cultures to allow marriage-based sexual activity. (Though under 14 you really have to worry about abuse, IMO.)

 

I think the real question, ultimately, is freedom of choice. Do these people have the ability to leave those relationships? If they don't, then that's not acceptable.

 

But the brainwashing arguments are hard to accept, since that could happen anywhere, and that raises the spectre of religious demonization.

 

------------

 

An interesting point raised in the courtroom drama today: If there is an allegation of abuse against a specific individual, then why were the children removed from ALL of the houses in the community? Isn't that just guilt by association?

 

Obviously there are reasons to think that the same kind of abuse MIGHT be happening in other houses in that community, but the legal question is whether any evidence of abuse in all 416 cases exists. If there is not, then the children have to be returned to their parents.

 

I have a feeling that the state may have overstepped its bounds here, and that most of these kids may be going home in very short order, accompanied by 400 lawyers and a lot of victory dancing before the cameras. Which would be a shame if some of these children actually ARE being abused. Yet another case, perhaps, of overzealous, overambitious prosecution (ala Duke Lacross Team).

[iNow]

I have a feeling that the state may have overstepped its bounds here

Dude, this is Texas. We execute retarded people. You have NO idea where the state's "bounds" truly are placed.

[mooeypoo]

I don't think polygamy should be illegal, as long as no rights are violated. (Forced marriage, etc).

 

OTOH, I don't really think the state should be involved in marriage at all.

I completely agree.

 

However, the only thing that strikes a nerve, for me at least, in this specific case, is the huge number of children, and the fact this was a sort of a "compound".. it seems to not quite be a "normal" house hold.

 

But, as Phi and Cap'n pointed out - we can't conclude a lot yet, not until evidence are shown. I'm just expressing a reason for my own personal skepticism atm.. no particular evidence for it, yet. Just an opinion.

 

~moo

 

p.s (edit/add): Also, check out this excerpt from CNN:

Voss said about 130 of the children removed were under the age of 4 and that girls as young as 13 had conceived children at the ranch.

(source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/17/polygamy.custody/)

 

...I am, too, not for the government meddling into the personal affairs/marriage of adults. But if this is true, it might be considered child abuse (whether the child "wanted to" or not, bearing children at 13.. well.. I wouldn't call it healthy childhood at all).

 

So beyond the polygamy, I think the problem was the children.

[Mr Skeptic]

An interesting point raised in the courtroom drama today: If there is an allegation of abuse against a specific individual, then why were the children removed from ALL of the houses in the community? Isn't that just guilt by association?

 

Obviously there are reasons to think that the same kind of abuse MIGHT be happening in other houses in that community, but the legal question is whether any evidence of abuse in all 416 cases exists. If there is not, then the children have to be returned to their parents.

 

I think it is simply the "shotgun" approach to getting evidence. They gain over 400 very young witnesses, any of which could have something bad to say about their parents. What are the odds that out of 400 kids, one of them won't say something that will get the parents in trouble? They could do this whether their true target is the polygamy or whether they are honestly just thinking of the children.

 

I'll add to that, officials never like to lose a case.

 

p.s (edit/add): Also, check out this excerpt from CNN:

 

(source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/17/polygamy.custody/)

 

...I am, too, not for the government meddling into the personal affairs/marriage of adults. But if this is true, it might be considered child abuse (whether the child "wanted to" or not, bearing children at 13.. well.. I wouldn't call it healthy childhood at all).

 

So beyond the polygamy, I think the problem was the children.

 

Hm, that does complicate things significantly. But consider that in some cultures, marriages were arranged by the parents, frequently well before one or both children was anywhere close to grown up.

 

However, if the children were cut off from the outside world, that would be significant cause for concern. Young children are easily manipulated, and to see only from one point of view would be very bad.

[Pangloss]

However, if the children were cut off from the outside world, that would be significant cause for concern. Young children are easily manipulated, and to see only from one point of view would be very bad.

 

I see the point, but the idea that we might draw the line at mere isolation from the outside world, or even parental indoctrination/brainwashing of an unpopular socio-political position, might undermine parental authority everywhere.

 

Society has said that we want (and expect) parents to raise their children with minimal societal intervention. That means that there will ALWAYS be opinions indoctrinated onto children that many people in society don't like. Should children be removed because their parents are telling them things that others don't agree with? That makes me leery and worried about a different kind of brainwashing.

 

I'm playing devil's advocate here because I have major problems with under-16 marriage and polygamy in an environment fraught with potential for brainwashing -- I'm totally repelled by that notiong and with you emotionally 100%.

[imp]

... and worried about a different kind of brainwashing.

in an environment fraught with potential for brainwashing -- I'm totally repelled by that notiong and with you emotionally 100%.

 

Does not the usual process of growing through childhood to young adulthood involve "brainwashing"? Or do you feel that children normally process the experiences of maturing by weighing and evaluating such experiences for themselves? imp

[ParanoiA]

However, if the children were cut off from the outside world, that would be significant cause for concern. Young children are easily manipulated, and to see only from one point of view would be very bad.

 

Not necessarily. What if the context was early 19th century America, somewhere down South and an anti-slavery, anti-racism type group was protecting their children from the Southern influence of rationalizing the need for slavery and tenuous ideas of black inferiority?

 

It's always going to look like a bad thing to the bulk of society when a group practices in defiance of that society. Add kids and "weird" cultural ideas and voila! - instant bad guys.

 

I don't think girls having kids at that young age is necessarily abuse. As has been mentioned, this is normal for many cultures past and some present. I wouldn't say that societal norms alone frame the context for "wrongness" here, but in a society where that's considered normal behavior by all, I don't see how it therefore abuses them either.

 

Personally, I find the whole thing rather sick. How could you touch such young girls and not be repulsed with yourself or question what you're doing? And who wants a woman that walks and talks like a programmed replicant? They all look the same, dress the same, talk the same - even down to the freaking hairdo. Creepy. Then to erase identity between biological families? Yeah, I'm glad there are groups out there trying to bust these things up.

[Pangloss]

This story has taken an interesting twist that does not bode well for the polygamists. It turns out that of the 416 children, 31 of them are either pregnant or have already given birth! Talk about getting caught red-handed!

 

And as if that wasn't enough, some of the mothers have lost their status as plaintiffs. Why? Because it turns out that they're under the age of consent themselves, and have been reclassified as victims!

 

Not a good week for the polygamist's lawyers, that's for sure.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/04/28/texas-polygamyranch.html

[Pangloss]

Texas lost its appeal, by the way, and the kids are likely headed home soon. I got a chuckle out of one news story that said "... home to their mothers" -- of course, some of these children ARE mothers.

 

The original complaint was never tracked down and appears to have been a hoax, but in the process they seem to have uncovered more than a little evidence that sub-16 girls are being impregnated (since they had several of them in protective services for a while). Guess that's not sufficient evidence to go forward with a case. Go figure.

 

They are, however, working on a deal that would involve the polygamists taking parenting classes and allowing continued monitoring by state authorities.

Edited May 31, 2008 by Pangloss