2 edits
Who'd have thought you'd get a libertarian decision out of the TSC? But they upheld an appellate court ruling that the mass seizure of 460 children of members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not warranted by Texas law.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/29/texas.polygamists/index.html
Even members of despised religious cults have rights in Texas. Who knew?
EDIT: The decision is here: http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/29/080391.pdf
A five page decision from a group of judges on such a high profile case? I'm impressed.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou were surprised at the initial decision to remove all the children if I remember correctly. Seems you made the right call.
Who'd have thought you'd get a libertarian decision out of the TSC? But they upheld an appellate court ruling that the mass seizure of 460 children of members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not warranted by Texas law.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/29/texas.polygamists/index.html
Even members ...[text shortened]... A five page decision from a group of judges on such a high profile case? I'm impressed.
I think a good argument can be made for returning the males and pre-pubescent females, but I do wonder about the pubescent girls. Is there not enough evidence to show risk to their welfare by keeping them with their families?
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's probably the closest thing to an orgasm those poor women will ever know.
Who'd have thought you'd get a libertarian decision out of the TSC? But they upheld an appellate court ruling that the mass seizure of 460 children of members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not warranted by Texas law.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/29/texas.polygamists/index.html
Even members ...[text shortened]... A five page decision from a group of judges on such a high profile case? I'm impressed.
Originally posted by telerionIn fact, 3 judges dissented from the decision as regards the pubescent girls (though joining in the rest of the decision). The 6 judge majority decided that no showing of "imminent danger" had been made (as required by Texas law for a removal) and that there are adequate safeguards in the law to monitor and protect these children short of the drastic action of removing them from their parents. It is possible that further hearings in specific cases could come to a conclusion that removal was warranted.
You were surprised at the initial decision to remove all the children if I remember correctly. Seems you made the right call.
I think a good argument can be made for returning the males and pre-pubescent females, but I do wonder about the pubescent girls. Is there not enough evidence to show risk to their welfare by keeping them with their families?
I am happy for the ruling. The seizure was 'unwarranted by law.' They broke up these families illegally, so this needs to go a step further. Those responsible for the illegal seizures need to be held accountable. They need to made an example of. This was a travesty, and like you stated, even despised members of religious cults have rights (under our federal constitution), too. You folks that are apathetic about this, or mocking these folks, just don't understand. If these people's rights can be violated without any retribution, perhaps yours are next.
Originally posted by dizzyfingersits a basic human right to be a member of a crazy cult, as long as you pay your taxes 😀
I am happy for the ruling. The seizure was 'unwarranted by law.' They broke up these families illegally, so this needs to go a step further. Those responsible for the illegal seizures need to be held accountable. They need to made an example of. This was a travesty, and like you stated, even despised members of religious cults have rights (under our fed ...[text shortened]... d. If these people's rights can be violated without any retribution, perhaps yours are next.
Originally posted by eamon oJust as long as such a cult doesn't infringe the rights of children, or adults who are not consenting to participation.
its a basic human right to be a member of a crazy cult, as long as you pay your taxes 😀
In the case of extreme harms, I'd say even adults can't consent to them.... like mass suicide, for example (though in the case of Jonestown, I'd say the cyanide drinking wasn't voluntary in any case).
As far as unconventional religious practices or sexual activities or relationship structures go, then as long as it's consenting adults I don't think the government has a place intervening. If minors are being "married" to adults, that's an issue though.
On the balance of things, I'd need more information to appraise the ruling but I'm leaning towards agreeing with it. It really depends on the degree to which there was an increased risk of material harms or rights infringements against children, compared to the general population. Child abuse happens in the general population as well, so it would need to be quite systemic before it was justified to remove the children.
Bear in mind that the police haven't raided the Catholic church, or conservative Jewish communities where child sexual abuse is more likely to be covered up and go unreported.
Originally posted by karnachzMy life is not yours to save against my will.
Just as long as such a cult doesn't infringe the rights of children, or adults who are not consenting to participation.
In the case of extreme harms, I'd say even adults can't consent to them.... like mass suicide, for example (though in the case of Jonestown, I'd say the cyanide drinking wasn't voluntary in any case).
As far as unconventional relig ...[text shortened]... unities where child sexual abuse is more likely to be covered up and go unreported.
Originally posted by no1marauderActually, Texas has a long tradition self-reliance and of demanding that the federal government leave us alone. They don't call us the Lone Star State for nothing.
Who'd have thought you'd get a libertarian decision out of the TSC? But they upheld an appellate court ruling that the mass seizure of 460 children of members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not warranted by Texas law.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/29/texas.polygamists/index.html
Even members ...[text shortened]... A five page decision from a group of judges on such a high profile case? I'm impressed.
