Jesse is right that my comment represented an acceptance of the fallacy that it is ok for the government to act inappropriately as long as wrong-doing is found and dealt with. I didn’t intend to convey that thought but did in the comment. Texas did not do the right thing.

Still, something needs to be done. This issue involves a closed society of men forcing themselves on young girls through use of physical intimidation and brain washing. It is hard not to be glad to see that these children are now being made safe from such obvious harm even when the process being used to make them safe is so clearly unjust.

The argument that it is ok for government to take people’s kids away without presenting real evidence of an immediate threat to the children is an argument in favor of gross tyranny. The idea that parental teachings contrary to societal mores are a legitimate basis for termination of parental rights is absurd. The vast majority of children taken by the state of Texas have not been shown to have been in any immediate danger of physical or sexual abuse. They should be returned and the state of Texas should be prosecuting the men responsible for these abusive practices instead of the innocent children.

Utah’s prosecution of Warren Jeffs was a good start.

Go to the DCFS website for any state and you will see why everywhere in this country, the rules differ when applied to children, because they have no legal voice or recourse of action. This is where the state has the right and obligation to step in and adjudicate the situation.

There is no ‘means’ or ‘ends’ argument here. The state of Texas acted accordingly in investigating the abusive threat of a child. Once upon the scene, judgement takes place. Any citizen without a voice is given one through the means of a judge and a court who act on behalf of the child according to the dictates of common law.

According to that common law, every child in that compound was in an intolerant abusive environment.

The FLDS lawyers haven’t a leg to stand on. That’s why you now see them grasping at straws.

Mick’s off hand comment about “left-leaners” and their attraction to young girls is easily countered by the tendency of Republican politicians to be pederasts and homosexual airport bathroom swingers. His on-going quest to assert that his political allies represent moral purity in the fight against the morally evil liberals is as foolish as it is pointless.

There exists no right of parents to abuse their children. Children are not property. It is the state’s clear role to protect its citizens, and that includes its children.

I think rape is something children should be protected from, don’t you?

Its understandable that people would be nervous about such a massive display of state power, but let’s put our emotions back where they belong and consider this rationally–its an unprecedented example of flagrant flaunting of human rights on an institutional level. Big crime requires big police action.

Furthermore, the removal of the children; fifty more that Lonsberry’s count because many young girls lied about their age to hide the fact of their underaged pregnancy from state officials; is still subject to due process.

Judging from Vanity Fair’s willingness to produce child porn for public consumption, perhaps the real objection by left-leaners is that they actually like the idea of sex with very young girls.

If you knowingly live in a drug house, but don’t do drugs, should they still take your kids away from you? Parenting includes protecting your children from harmful and abusive environments. Neglect is the lack of this action. Kids are taken from drug homes every day, sometimes from parents who don’t do drugs. Is this incorrect?

DCFS always removes children for safety/questioning when they live in a home or family environment where there is evidence of endangerment. This just happens to be one big group of adults behaving as such a family behind locked gates and guarded fences.

You cannot argue that all of these children are not in some degree danger given the history of this group as a whole.

How about this example. Let’s say you found out that your cousin Joe was molesting numerous little girls and telling them to tell nobody about it or else. Would you then relinquish your daughter to be submitted for questioning?

If you were in cahoots with Joe letting him molest your children, you would not.

So where is the line drawn? I understand your arguments, but here is my question: Do the rights of the parents supersede the rights of the children?

Sad if you answer yes. Sad indeed.

Also, beware comparing polygamy of earlier years in the LDS church with these men. All teenage girls in the US at the time married at much younger ages back then.