Nazi tactics American style

theist · 04-28-2008, 12:28 PM

The police stormed the temple and peaceful community of some polygamist mormons and took away as many as 462 children without due process of law allowing the parents to contest the action. The police arrived as swat teams armed with automatic rifles and equipped with armoured tank like vehicles and literally tore the crying children from the arms of their mothers. Even up to today these parents have no idea where there children are.

Mormons today, the Hare Krsna's tomorrow. If we don't speak up at injustices enacted on others we can't expect them to speak out for us when we are the target.

It is amazing that homosexual relationships are finding tolerance but having more than one wife is considereed a high crime. You can even have one wife and many mistresses and illegimate children that you don't care for but you can't have more than wife and many children that you do care for.
Were religious rights, family sanctity trampled?

By Christy Hoppe and Robert T. Garrett
The Dallas Morning News
Published: April 23, 2008
AUSTIN, Texas — Texas law provides for all children to be removed from a home if there's suspicion that one of them might have been abused, and that is what happened to the 437 children of Yearning for Zion ranch. But some experts worry that religious rights and family sanctity were trampled on the way out the door. "I think it is an incredible and astounding exercise of police power," said civil rights attorney James Harrington.
The entire investigation was kicked off by what police now suspect was a hoax phone call, allegedly coming from within the Eldorado, Texas, polygamist compound by an abused 16-year-old. An extensive search warrant was issued, allowing police to rummage through every house in the large compound. In the end, hundreds of children were separated from their mothers.
Harrington said his immediate concern is for the children, who he suspects are traumatized and victimized.
"You can't take away a kid from their parents by saying, 'Hey, maybe later on there might be some abuse,"' he said. "It's a way of flipping the Constitution around so that they now have to prove they're innocent instead of the state having to prove they're guilty."
But this is civil law, and the fact is, the state law gives Child Protective Services a great deal of leeway, said Jack Sampson, a family law professor at the University of Texas law school.
The law sets a low threshold for removing a child from a potentially dangerous situation and urges judges to err on the side of caution.
"The department deemed the story told by the complainant to be a credible one and responded," Sampson said. "Whether it was a hoax or not from the victim is really irrelevant."
Once in the door, CPS conducted its own investigation, and presented evidence to state district Judge Barbara Walther that at least 20 women who lived in the compound were 16 or younger when they became pregnant.
"They responded and got all sorts of visible evidence as to what was going on in the compound," Sampson said. "You don't have to prove abuse at that first stage" where the state can win temporary custody of the children.
Kevin Dietz, a lawyer representing 45 mothers from the Fundamentalist LDS Church, said the state violated basic due process standards when it swept so many children from families without giving the parents an opportunity to respond.
Some of his clients received no notice from the court or CPS about the legal proceedings. "They had no meaningful way to participate and no evidence was presented against them," said Dietz, who works with Texas RioGrande Legal Aid.
Some clients were living as a couple with their three young sons, and the CPS did not explain what danger male children might face.
"These parents, other than being a member of this religion, were otherwise protective parents," Dietz said.
"The state might have evidence that some mothers put some children a risk, but you can't bootstrap that evidence to apply to everyone who lived in this community. And that's what was done last week," he said.
Social conservative lawyer Kelly Shackelford said he and other Christian-rights advocates have their "antennas up," worried that overly broad actions could do collateral damage to parents' rights and church autonomy.
He and others — including Harrington and Dietz — said they believe the state should bring criminal charges if men in the polygamist sect are forcing 12- and 13-year-old girls into sexual relations.
But, Shackelford said it is important to protect freedoms also. Too often, government officials and judges have a tendency, "to say that because we are protecting children, we can do what we want," he said.
Sampson, the University of Texas law professor, said the law "doesn't expect miracles" in mass litigation. The state had 14 days to present a case to the judge, and in certain aspects, it was similar to other child abuse hearings, he said.
When a mother knows of sexual or physical abuse of her child — whether it be by a boyfriend or a relative — and fails to report it herself, then the state takes a dim view of her ability to protect not just that child, but all of the children in her household.
"It's up to the judge to determine what's the household or the community," Sampson said.

rand0M aXiS · 04-28-2008, 04:27 PM

Hey! At least Janet Reno isn't AG. Then they would have brought tanks in, burned it to the ground, and killed 'em all......

theist · 04-28-2008, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rand0M aXiS

Hey! At least Janet Reno isn't AG. Then they would have brought tanks in, burned it to the ground, and killed 'em all......

So true. At least they got out alive. They probably would have burned all to death if there had been any resistence.

As soon as I saw the picture of their "compound" (TEMPLE) I was remnded of Waco. What happened to religious rights in Texas or the USA?

It blows my mind. Homosexuals pracing naked in street parades but these people get raided.

Baobabtree · 04-28-2008, 06:48 PM

I don't know enough about this incident to comment upon it, however I was rather disturbed when I read this-

Quote:

It is amazing that homosexual relationships are finding tolerance but having more than one wife is considereed a high crime.

What exactly is so wrong with homosexuality might I ask?

AncientMariner · 04-28-2008, 08:34 PM

I never have understood why polygamy is persecuted so much. Apparently some of the polygamist cults have had problems with child abuse and obviously that should be taken seriously but it seems child abuse exists plenty in monogamous marriages and everywhere else in society.

I am not a big fan of Mormonism personally because I grew up in a mostly Mormon school and they would engage in high pressure tactics and mind games to try and get you to join their church but I don't care if they are polygamists.

indulekhadasi · 04-28-2008, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baobabtree

I don't know enough about this incident to comment upon it, however I was rather disturbed when I read this- What exactly is so wrong with homosexuality might I ask?

The purpose of marriage and sex life is to produce devotee children.

Baobabtree · 04-28-2008, 10:38 PM

Quote:

The purpose of marriage and sex life is to produce devotee children.

That's one way of looking at it. I view both marriage and sex as expressions of love and affection, therefore I see no harm in such relationships.

rand0M aXiS · 04-28-2008, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baobabtree

I don't know enough about this incident to comment upon it, however I was rather disturbed when I read this- What exactly is so wrong with homosexuality might I ask?

What is wrong with homosex? If you have to ask that question, then you will never understand the answer!

theist · 04-29-2008, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rand0M aXiS

What is wrong with homosex? If you have to ask that question, then you will never understand the answer!

This is true. The most basic course in anatomy tells us that. But let's keep this one on religious rights in America.

Really when put to the test we do not have any political protection from either of the two major political parties. Both are sold out the the large scale corporate interests who care only about money and expanding power. Couple that with apathy of the average beaten down, emmasculated American pysche and this country is in bad bad shape.

50 or 75 years ago the goverment never would have dared such a thing, what to speak of the times of the Founding Fathers whoen fathers would have met the goverment agents at the door with rifles in hands to protect their families.

mahak · 04-29-2008, 07:16 PM

Waco was horrific, especially when we find out that Mr. Koresh was a daily customer of the local pub and could have been arrested without incident if they wanted to. But some like big events, especially involving non-mainstream religions.

Fascism means all who dont submit get taken away. And America must come to terms with a post-constitution government, where there are no more rights to assemble, associate, practice religion, defend the family, and especially, no more right to band together and overthrow the government when King Vena takes the helm.

We used the word fascism loosely in the sixties, when there were few symptoms. Now we use the word to describe all those whom the real Nazis want to make our enemies. Big Brother was, in actuality, the opposition leader against big brother as well. Hold on, Billary is coming.

mad mahax

RadheyRadhey108 · 04-29-2008, 09:43 PM

I think people should be able to have whatever sexual freedoms they would like (as long as they aren't hurting anyone) in a secular-style government (which is, quite honestly, the kind of government I like).

theist · 04-29-2008, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadheyRadhey108

I think people should be able to have whatever sexual freedoms they would like (as long as they aren't hurting anyone) in a secular-style government (which is, quite honestly, the kind of government I like).

Wrong thread bro.

theist · 04-29-2008, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mahak

Waco was horrific, especially when we find out that Mr. Koresh was a daily customer of the local pub and could have been arrested without incident if they wanted to. But some like big events, especially involving non-mainstream religions.

Fascism means all who dont submit get taken away. And America must come to terms with a post-constitution government, where there are no more rights to assemble, associate, practice religion, defend the family, and especially, no more right to band together and overthrow the government when King Vena takes the helm.

We used the word fascism loosely in the sixties, when there were few symptoms. Now we use the word to describe all those whom the real Nazis want to make our enemies. Big Brother was, in actuality, the opposition leader against big brother as well. Hold on, Billary is coming.

mad mahax

Vena. That's the right example Mahak. Problem is there does not seem to be a Prithu on the horizen. The only guy that is even remotely on the political scene that I can stand to listen to is Allen Keyes and we ain't heard from him in years. And he has less chance than Ralph Nader.

The scarey thing about the Billiary prospect is she looks like the best deal out there and you know I can't stand her. The thought of Bill back on White House grounds makes me ill.

Seriously it is Prithu or nothing. Or world wide catastrophe as I am inclined to believe is the immediate fate of this planet.

And hey, nice to here from Random again. Hey is it going Random?

RadheyRadhey108 · 04-29-2008, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theist

Wrong thread bro.

I was responding to people who think that (willful) polygamy is wrong and (willful) homosexuality is wrong. I really don't see anything wrong with either one (in a secular setting, that is). As long as it's their choice. Of course, everyone has their own opinion. I was just stating my own.

theist · 04-29-2008, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadheyRadhey108

I was responding to people who think that (willful) polygamy is wrong and (willful) homosexuality is wrong. I really don't see anything wrong with either one (in a secular setting, that is). As long as it's their choice. Of course, everyone has their own opinion. I was just stating my own.

OK,polygamy is the topic. One is natural and the other one isn't. Even the vedas are filled with polygamist relationships. I also don't see anything wrong with polygamist relationships as long as they are entered into freely and at a proper age.

Why do you think the state is so concerned with these simple peoples lifestyle. I think religion must have something to do with it. Smells like selective persecution to me. What do you think?