Comments on: FLDS in Texas: How to assess?

By: C. L. Hanson

C. L. Hanson — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:51:45 +0000

Forcing/pressuring underage girls to marry older men should be illegal, but that’s not the main issue in the FLDS raid. The biggest problem is that even if they had evidence of sixteen or seventeen-year-olds being abused in this manner (which is not certain) they had no evidence whatsoever that pre-adolescent children were being abused. Raising children in a isolated environment and teaching them values that mainstream society finds abhorrent may be unethical and reprehensible, but it is not abuse and it is not illegal, nor should it be.

Taking small children away from their parents without probable cause to do so is totally unconstitutional and should be vehemently opposed by anyone who is concerned about the Bill of Rights and protecting civil liberties even if you find the FLDS religion abhorrent (which I do). Remember the famous quote of H. L. Menken: “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”

I’ve written about this (in even more detail, if youcan believe it ), here.

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:03:47 +0000

Hello, I followed your comment back from Paul’s post. This situation is very troubling for me. I think Alice speaks closest for my take on this as well. Yes the State is empowered to act on allegations of abuse, but the summary nation of their actions are disturbing. To make the judgment that foster care is the only option and remove so many children before determining the actual circumstances is wrong. I feel strongly that many if not most of the children will wind up being returned to their mothers after the legal hearings and appeals are done. But at what cost to the children themselves? I feel that the State has abused these children by the heavy handed way they have treated them.

By: karenrayne

karenrayne — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:45:59 +0000

Thanks for the question, Nate. The answer is that no, no one has made any allegations that the male children have been sexually approached in any way.

However, the state’s policy is that if *anyone* in the household has been sexually abused, no children may return to that household. Basically, I agree with that policy. Even though the boys are not being sexually abused, if the girls are, then the boys are learning that sexual abuse of girls is okay. And that is not a supportable position.

By: NATE

NATE — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:14:50 +0000

Has anyone made a case for the young male kids to be in danger? They are not married young, and not even an allegation of abuse has been made regarding a boy. They seem to be in a safer spot than Catholic alter boys. Only the young girls who hit puberty are in danger. Maybe send the boys back.

By: Adolescent Sexuality by Dr. Karen Rayne » Jock Sturges: artist or pornographer?

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:13:53 +0000

[...] artist or pornographer? As long as we’re talking about the line between appropriate and inappropriate adolescent sexuality, I thought I would bring up Jock Sturges. There is much controversy about Jock Sturges‘ [...]

By: karenrayne

karenrayne — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:01:04 +0000

Boise - touche! Thank you for encouraging me to be more specific.

Encouraging underage girls to have sex with much older men is sexual abuse.

I disagree with you contention that a young girl who marries is an adult, while a young girl who has a baby is not. Marriage does not adulthood confer - particularly, and let me stress this - when the marriage is arranged by adults to an adult man.

Yes, I agree that there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that any of the children or teenagers are being hit or ignored. There is no indication that children under early puberty are being sexually engaged in any way - or that adolescent boys are being sexually engaged at any age.

However, and this speaks to Alice’s question/point as well, the children and teenagers who are not pre-teen/teenage girls are learning that pre-teen/teenage girls can and should be sexually abused, because that is what God wants. And that is just not okay.

By: Alice

Alice — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:44:32 +0000

This is what I mean, Karen. IF the children are being sexually abused, then of course they shouldn’t be allowed to go back home. But I find it hard to believe that all 400 of them are being sexually abused and I would be horrified if they were permanently removed from their homes on circumstantial evidence or hearsay. This is why the state has the duty to find out exactly what happened to each individual child before making any long-reaching decisions. And if the only issue is underage marriage, I do think there should be a way for the state to address (”correct”) the problem without destroying a whole community.

By: Boise Leon

Boise Leon — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:25:03 +0000

Using the word “abuse” as a noun or a verb is useless to describe what you think is wrong with the FLDS or anyone for that matter. The word is a broad brush that may miss the mark or soil the intent of the message. It assumes that the hearer of the word can read minds and oft as not it fails miserably.
Ask yourself, “Specifically, how do you think a nursing mother is likely to abuse her infant?” It is hard for me to even imagine the list of activities and whether a description could even be put forward in a court of law. If in infant is not allowed to receive his/her mother’s milk, who is the abuser if a third party prevents contact? Can the mother sue the abuser in a Texas court? It would seem like she should be able to.
If a person willingly enters into a sacred covenant to marry, obey and cherish a man who will care and provide for her for all eternity and then has sexual intercourse for the purpose of having a child, has she done anything wrong? Most people believe that marriage is ordained of God and yet Texas claims no authority from God to perform marriages. When a woman is married she is no longer a child regardless of her age. She should not be treated as a child. A young girl who is not married and has a child is still a child.
Instead of calling it abuse you should specifically name the activity and assure that the activity is legal or not. Name calling could be abuse but may be legal. Sexual intercourse with an unwilling partner is illegal and must be proved in a court of law to be punishable.
Without going through a list of activities of interest to the courts, we should go through the list of unlawfully detained individuals and determine their possible infraction of any law.
Since chastity is a must for living in the community. It is not likely that anyone, male or female, is having any sexual intercourse outside the bonds of marriage. The best evidence for chastity is the dress uniform, covering the body by 200 to 300 percent. Some couples married for many years have never seen each other naked, believe it or not. The likelihood of nudity should not even cross your mind with this group.
You can rule out all the males in the children group. They will not be fondled or stimulated or seduced in any way. The only reason to keep the boys would be if they show scars from being beaten. Texas, let the boys go home.
All the girls have worn pant like clothes under those long dresses all their life, since they were just a few years old.
Some people in our society would consider the absence of TV viewing to be a form of abuse. Well, folks, I use the V chip in my satellite system and I still cannot control the filthy things that come up on our TV. There are good things and bad things about TV and this group has made their choice. Who is to say they made a bad choice?
These people hold themselves to a high standard that most of the world do not even understand.
Instead of yelling abuse, name it and make sure it is provable. I predict that the unintended consequence of what is happening in Texas will precipitate the acceptance of polygamy and civil unions over the entire country. This will solve the problems of unregistered births and marriages. Things will eventually get better, or worse. (how profound)

By: karenrayne

karenrayne — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:13:30 +0000

I do, in many situations, think this is possible. But I don’t think that’s a possibility in the case of sexual abuse. I do think that overall the FLDS adults seem honest and law abiding - and it might be that they would be willing to negotiate with the state. I know it’s been asked if the children could return home if all of the men left the ranch, for example. But given the pervasiveness of the problem, I’m not sure.

For example, in general sex abuse cases, if a mother is aware that sexual abuse is taking place and does not move to stop it, she is considered to have been abusive as well. In that case, the state would keep the child during the duration of the investigation.

So the state is suggesting that the fathers and the mothers have allowed their children to be sexually abused - and are therefore not providing a safe environment. So I doubt the state would agree to such a situation.

What do you think, Alice?

By: Alice

Alice — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:01:04 +0000

Do you think it would be possible for them to live at home with their parents, but with extra supervision from the state?