1. I am not aware of any evidence of “group” rape or abuse. Individuals had sex with young women with the approval of some other people.

2. There are 3 main allegations underage sex (and/or involuntary marriage), incest, child abandonment.

So, if a family in the group has no prior practice in any of the things listed in 2 above and disavows support of any of those 3, what reason is there to take their kids.

Also, I don’t recall you answering the circumcision question which is a live issue in the USA.

I don’t see popular support as evidence for the policy being a good one. The USA maintains a small, but meaningful legal tradition and the tyranny of the majority.

History has countless examples of “almost universal support” of what later generations determined to be criminal behavior.

It only according to our own lights that we’ve made the moral progress that gives sanction to our sanctimony about the protective powers we give the state.

And compared to being forced to eat processed foods, these kids are suffering far worse problems. It’s good to keep some perspective…

Are you assuming that the state grants the right? I doubt it, but there seems to be a “papa state knows best” creep in your analysis.

Isn’t the issue one of the state’s protection of the fundamental right?

Could you give your reaction to the recent case of child seizure in the US, where the state invaded a Mormon community? Clearly there’s a lot at stake there, and it’s all very complex. But I gagged when a state official expressed concern that the children couldn’t stomach processed foods because they’d been raised on a natural diet. I fear they’ll have to put up with some rather dreadful re-education.

Martin, I don’t know anything about US child protection law, but I did have some exposure (professionally) to the child protection laws in one state of Australia, and in that case it was very clear that the state always attempts (in theory, the state being a state and all that) to try and keep families together, with removal being the last option. That said, however, when dealing with a child in a family one always has to take the family as a GROUP. After all, if you decide to leave the child with the family are you not at least partially taking into account the rights and desires of the GROUP (i.e. the parents) and balancing them against the child? The realm of child protection law and study needs to take into account the dynamics of the family unit, including but not necessarily limited to the long-term effect of a child witnessing his siblings being raped, beaten or abused. I guess you don’t work in child protection, and neither do I but I have worked close enough to the industry to have heard some truly shocking stories, and to have seen their long term consequences. Child abuse is the gift that keeps on giving, for generations after it is done, and it really is the case that broad and generalised intervention makes a big difference to the future of more than just the actual victims.

You also should note you have phrased the situation very poorly. You say that because the

GROUP does not agree with the law on a specific matter (marriage and pregnancy at a young age) that the GROUP loses it right to custody of all its children, even those that are unlikely to be affected by a young age of marriage.

GROUP rapes female children and impregnates them, and raises boys to do the same, the GROUP loses it right to custody of all its children, even those that are unlikely to be affected by rape

(Assuming, of course that the facts of the case as asserted by the authorities are true).

I have three layers of concern. The first is that the same high standards of proof that would be required for a crime (formal charges, counsel, trial by jury, etc.) do not apply to child custody situations. I understand that the law is not on my side on this one. The law makes it relatively easy to remove children if a child may be harmed. Let’s set that one aside.

The second point is that the legal precedent has been very much less restrictive in terms of indoctrination. A custodial parent is allowed extreme latitude in terms of inculcating beliefs. Here I think that Texas is trying to move the law and expand the definition of harm and abuse to include inculcating certain beliefs. Let’s set that aside.

The third point is that the definitions of rape and abuse that are under consideration are ones that have been under transition over time. The age of consent to marry, the allowable punishments for children, the law on rape for spouses, etc. have changed over time to protect women and children.

The FLDS is a culture that is out of step with the times and I am willing to concede that they are out of step enough that some persons in the group have likely committed crimes. I am not contesting the right of the state to the full enforcement of those laws towards those individuals.

My primary point is that goes too far, way too far, too far to the point of totalitarian evil, to conclude that since your GROUP does not agree with the law on a specific matter (marriage and pregnancy at a young age) that the GROUP loses it right to custody of all its children, even those that are unlikely to be affected by a young age of marriage.

I think they deserve at least as much good faith because they are weird and cultish rather than less because it means its more likely their practices may be misunderstood by the community at large.

Let’s look at some analogous situations. Take female circumcision or even male circumcision. By some evolving standards this is abuse.

Are you OK to taking all the children away from families that support these practices?

Which point? I thought we were basically in agreement….

Hmm. You’ve not offered /any/ reasons, beyond asserting that It Is Wrong And It Is Illegal. In general, the person seeking to impose restrictions on freedom is the one who’s supposed to justify them.

I don’t believe that for a 16-year-old girl to go out with a man in his 20s or even 30s is a particularly bad thing; I know many women who dated or slept with older men when they were in their teens and don’t regret it; and I know very few who do regret it [and for the avoidance of doubt, this is Very Very Different from forced marriage, incest, or abuse by someone in a position of power]. And that is why I don’t think it should be criminalised.

Your turn.

martin, I think everyone here agrees with the concerns that some people have about states taking onto themselves the power to tell others how to be good parents. But conflating simple situations with the extreme doesn’t help with resolving practical questions like this one. And you seem to be suggesting that we should extend a good faith assumption that 6 year olds aren’t being abused to a community which supports and protects the abuse fo 12 and 14 year olds. Why would we do that? And who should take responsibility for making that assumption when (and it will be when, if the initial accusations prove to be true) it turns out to be wrong?

lemuel, in defending the definition of genocide you never got around to answering my original point. Are you still reading?

You are one typical bureaucrat: take all the kids and sort out the crimes later. A country with that kind of due process is a country without much due process.

Describing 2,4 and 6 year olds being taken from their homes under no immediate threat whatsoever as “stabilization” is totalitarian in the extreme.

Why?
I mean, that’s fine, but that isn’t a reason. I’ve offered my reasons, you’ve offered only emotion. I can only conclude that your position is irrational.

I understand that the age of consent in the UK is 16, the same as it is in many US states. I don’t have a problem with the age of consent being 16 or 17 or 18. The reasons for picking 16 rather than 17 are probably not very significant. But I do agree with the laws as they are now. That adults should not be allowed to have sexual intercourse with teenagers below the age of consent. If that is 16 or 17 isn’t the point.

One problem with this whole discussion is the confusion between US law, UK law, the situation faced by members of the FLDS, and some hypothetical neutral case. Sometimes when people were talking about 25 year old men and 17 year old girls they meant the FLDS and others were talking about a generalized situation. This ambiguity has not helped very much.

martin
“If it is so clear that the group systematically abused children why haven’t they all been arrested?”

For the umteenth time, the situation has to be stabilized and the children made safe before any further steps can be taken. And 31 pregnant children from ages 14 to 17 is overwhelming evidence that crimes have been committed.

If it is so clear that the group systematically abused children why haven’t they all been arrested?

Its the incredibly low standard required to prove harm before taking the children away that has me disgusted.

Bringing evidence and charges of rape against individuals or even conspiracy charges against a group and then taking those people’s children away is one thing but what has happened here is different.

The danger of the FLDS growing like a cancer is laughable. If they were a species or an aboriginal culture they’d be on the endangered list.

I’m not sure what you mean about protecting cults not offering a given individual protection. Are you agreeing with me that the state has gotten so instrusive in child-rearing practices that no one is safe.

Or are you saying indoctrination is abuse?