Polygamist Ranch Raid

StuckinTraffic

Miss Treager
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,645
Age
59
Location
Texas
I know this story's made national news in the US, don't know if the rest of the world's heard about it or not, tho. The gist of the story: a polygamist enclave in West Texas was raided about a week ago. The raid was in response to alleged phone calls from a 16 year old girl reporting sexual and physical abuse. The authorities took from the compound a number of children, both boys and girls, and several adult women. Many of the adult women returned a yesterday, but the children are all still in State custody.

Here are some links:

NBC Field Notes

MSNBC

Newsweek

Personally, I don't care how they want to live their lives. If a man wants to have 5 (or whatever) wives, and he can support them and the women agree, I say, "have at it." BUT, that is limited to ADULT women.....women who are old enough to make that decision for themselves. There are accusations that girls as young as 14 are being married off to older men, and that, in my mind, is wrong.

What do y'all think?
 
I think I am very troubled by the notion that this entire raid was tipped off by the accusation of a girl who doesn't seem to exist against a man who lives in another state. I'm not so sure how the state can use such scant evidence to justify a raid that results in the removal of hundreds of children from their homes.

In many states, teenagers are permitted to marry as long as they obtain written parental consent. I don't know all of the details, but I think it is unlikely that most of these kids are being married off against their wills. It is quite possible that most of these kids enter into these marriages willingly, just as many non-polygamist teens do. At any rate, until that is decided in a court of law, I don't see what right the state has to remove these kids from their parents. For that matter, if SOME of the kids have been married off against their wills, I don't see what right that gives the state to remove ALL of the kids just because they are part of the same religious sect.

I am not at all in favor of this religion, but I don't see how these people are bothering anyone by practicing their own wacky religion in peace on their own compound. I don't think the state should interfere. I know polygamy is illegal, but I don't even think the state should have the right to interfere with that. For the same reason that I support gay marriage, I support the marriage of multiple spouses. Who, how, and how many people a citizen loves is a private, personal matter in which I don't think the government has any business. I don't think the state has the right to regulate lifestyle choices unless those choices directly infringe upon the rights of another citizen. As long as all parties are consenting adults or consenting, of-age minors with equally consenting parents, then I think we should leave these folks alone. If a few of them have broken laws or been victims, then we need to address those specific incidents in a court of law. By taking away all the kids, it looks more like we're punishing the sect for having a different lifestyle than that of the mainstream culture than like we're actually indicting and trying people for legitimate crimes.
 
R
Randy Giles
[No message]
I think the outlaw of polygamy was started as a way to drive out the Mormons in the first place, cause you know in a country that supposedly has religious freedom they still can't allow Mormons to live in peace. I don't think the law against polygamy is right, but I don't think marrying a girl at 13-14 is right either anymore. I think it really depends if these women are entering into these marriages on their own accord or if someone else is persuading them to do so. I saw three of these women on the news this morning (I think it was GMA, although it could have been the Today show) and to me it just seemed like they were almost being told exactly what to say. They were pleading for the return of their children, which I in no way doubt as being genuine, but the way they kept saying that they were free and they love their life and no one ever kept them from making their own decisions until now seemed kind of rehersed almost. And maybe it was the fact that they were just distraught, or maybe that's just how they usually talk, but it seemed like they had been told what to say beforehand. Anyway, I say as long as they aren't hurting anyone, let them have their kids back. But don't marry the girls until they are at least 16-17 and have grown up a little bit. That's my own personal opinion at least.
 
As a Feminist, I despise Mormonism for what it does to women. Books like Sonia Johnson's From Housewife to Heretic and Deborah Laake's Secret Ceremonies: A Mormon Woman's Intimate Diary of Marriage succinctly lay out how Mormon families go about brainwashing their children to believe that women are made only to serve men and have their babies, and that men are descendants of and mouthpieces for God Himself. I do believe that if an adult woman decides to enter into a church like this of her own free will, that's her choice, but if she's raised in that environment, can she really be informed enough to have free will?
 
caitaintdead
caitaintdead
If I could give you multiple karma for this... I would.
R
Randy Giles
Sorry, you're a little off the mark here. Mormonism is no more anti-women than any religion, and don't you think if men could have babies too, they would? Women are not FORCED to have children.
A
Angel's vision
Couldn't agree more! on that last remark I'd say because of what they were raised to believe they know nothing else. If that is all they want woman for they is no better than the muslim men's opinion, which is similar!
^ I couldn't rep you, but I wholeheartedly agree. It can't be said that these girls are 'willing' to marry at a young age when many of them do not know that there are other options, or they don't want to disgrace their families within their communities. It's a tricky subject, I'm all for freedom of religion, and removal of the state from matters like that - but living in a commune generally isn't exactly a 'freedom', you are bound to that religion - so that's where I start getting tied up in theorectical knots about what's right and what's not in this situation.
 
A lot of people are raised in religions that are very misogynistic. My husband's family is Southern Baptist. That pastor tried to feed me that men are superior song-and-dance and include it in the vows, too. That doesn't mean that the women in his congregation don't have free will. I think it's sad, but a lot of the women genuinely believe that's how God wants them to live their lives. What if you were one of those young girls, say a 16-year-old pregnant wife, who was forced out of that lifestyle and into our lifestyle, which I'm sure they find as wrong as we find theirs? There's no free will in *that* either. I, for one, would be angry and appalled. Even if those girls have been brainwashed, those are their religious beliefs. They are important to those girls and they have a right to them. Who are we to forcibly rip them off a path that they believe God ordered?

Most organized religions brainwash to some extent. They all pretty much say these are the things you *must* do, believe, and/or say in order to be a good person, to earn the love of God/the Gods, or to reach some sort of spiritual reward. Many of those religions predate feminism and are, therefore, very sexist. Some are catching up. Others are becoming further entrenched. The bottom line is that we can't make feminism mandatory without infringing upon the rights of numerous religious groups, not just these polygamists.

We've done what we can do. We can give women equal rights under the law, which we've done. We can open doors, which we've done. We can expand health care and medical knowledge so that women aren't being treated according to the typical male model (we are slowly starting to do this, but I really wish we'd move a bit faster). What we can't do is force people to change their lifestyles against their wills and against their religions. It is troubling, but many people -- many women, even -- just don't see women as equal to men. In a free nation, those people should be allowed to deviate from the mainstream as much as they choose, provided they don't commit any crimes. If the police can find evidence of actual crimes, then sure. Make arrests. Take away the underage victims of those specific crimes. But you can't say that because they don't embrace feminism, the women have no free will and cannot consent, and so everything they did is a crime. There is no law saying these people have to be feminists. If there were such a law, a lot of churches would have to be shut down. I wouldn't want to live that way, but I wouldn't want the government to swoop down and tell me my religion is illegal, either.

With regard to anti-polygamy laws... I think those were put in place to entice more women to come and/or stay West. The West had earned itself a pretty wild reputation. On the one hand, women in some of the territories enjoyed the right to vote. On the other hand, women were viewed by the overwhelmingly male society as rare commodities and freely bought and sold (and not always by choice). Chinese girls were brought over in boatloads as prostitute slave girls. By and large, women were considered property. A father might lose his daughter in a game of cards. That was no way to entice families and women to come West, so I think a lot of communities tightened their polygamy and prostitution laws in consideration of the fact that if they were going to build a real and lasting society that would be around after the gold and other resources were gone, they had to bill themselves as less “wild” and more civilized and safe. Now that women’s equal rights are protected by the law, though, those anti-polygamy and anti-prostitution laws only serve to promote discrimination against women who choose to live as polygamists or prostitutes, respectively.
 
I agree with most of your points, PV, but there is a distinct difference between telling kids that they need to be good, do unto others, etc. because God wants them to and telling little girls that their entire self-worth hinges on a man, that they're nothing if they don't find a good man and marry him in Temple, etc. And then, if a girl grows up and leaves the church, her family is never allowed to speak to her again. It's pretty harsh.
 
^ Oh, I agree that it's pretty harsh. I am not at all in favor of this religion. If God wants people to live like that, then I want nothing to do with God.


I just don't think the fact that majority disagrees with their religious teachings gives the majority the right to take all of their kids away. I think the kids should be taken intro protective custody only in cases in which there is sufficient evidence to justify charging the parents in a criminal trial. This just seemed to be taking away all the kids because the majority didn't like the religious teachings. I don't like this religion, but my dislike of it doesn't (or shouldn't) diminish their right to practice it or even to pass it on to their children.
 
I think the main problem wasn't so much with the religion but with the marrying of 14-year-olds to grown men, sometimes their own first cousins, and other law breakages. Granted, this is all "alleged" and due to some of the issues they're having, it's going to be difficult to prosecute, but like any right, Freedom of Religion stops when it begins infringing on other people's rights.
 
^ Again, I agree. I think there are probably laws that have been broken and I don't think the right to practice this religion puts these people above the law. I just think they were too hasty in the removal of all of the kids. I think they should actually have some idea as to who allegedly broke which laws and be able to match the children to those parents (or illegal spouses) before they go in and just rip apart a community like that.

What bothers me about this case is that it all seems so hasty. That's what makes it seem like discrimination to me. I mean, the man against whom the initial report was made lives in Arizona and met with his probation officer on schedule just the next day. That doesn't mean he couldn't have been in Texas the night before, but the fact that this guy is a legal resident of another state and regularly abides by the terms of his parole does make me question whether or not he also lives on this Texas ranch. The fact that the 16-year-old pregnant victim of rape and abuse who made the initial claim has yet to be found or even identified also sends up another red flag. I mean, the entire raid was triggered by an unsubstantiated claim against a man from another state. Something about that smells fishy to me... especially when the result of the raid was to take all of the kids into custody instead of to collect evidence, take some kids based on that evidence, and then charge some adults based on that evidence. Attacking and separating the entire community like that as a result of such a weak tip off, well... like I said, it smells fishy.

I actually worry that the sloppy manner in which this case is being handled is going to result in a lot of the evidence being deemed inadmissible in court. I think that everybody involved would have had a much better chance of receiving justice if the actual crimes and identities of the potential victims and the potential criminals had been figured out before anyone was taken into custody.
 
^ Interestingly enough, the media is FREAKING OUT because the compound has been there for three (I think) years, and the police didn't move on it faster!
 
^ Yeah. I know. And I don't get that. I mean, what are they supposed to do? Should the police raid every out-of-the-way community just in case they happen to be breaking laws? They had to wait for some evidence. Sure, everyone in the wider community might have suspected, but hearsay and gut feelings don't count as evidence. As it is, the cops didn't wait for *much* evidence. I'm surprised it took three years for some unidentified, unlocated, and stereotypically victimized young girl to call in a complaint about a registered sex offender from another state. The only thing that makes me feel like the tip might be legitimate is that it's just so bad. I mean, as far as evidence goes, it sucks. I would hope that anyone trying to set up the sect would at least trace it back to the sect in an easy-to-confirm sort of way.

Until they can find the girl and maybe release some evidence about any specific crime that with an actual suspect and an actual victim or maybe even figure out which kids belong to which parents, then I'm still going to be in the "not enough information" camp. The authorities may know more than they're telling the public, but based on what they're telling the public, I just don't trust that they know enough to even know the identities of everyone they took into custody or of the girl who made the original complaint, let alone the specifics of each case. I just don't think you should take drastic action, like separating kids from their parents, unless you at least know who the kids and parents are and have details regarding the alleged crimes.
 
As long as young teenagers are not involved I see nothing wrong with the practice of polygamy, especially if the women are mature and old enough and THEY want to be involved with it. No one else has the right to judge them, as odd as the practice may seem.

I actually know a polygamist family. Before I met them I was always very disturbed by the notion of polygamy but this particular family is completely normal aside from the polygamist aspect. The children aren't social retards, they're no more crazy than any other average person, etc. They're pretty open about their lifestyle too, everyone in their town knows about them, and there's definitely no abuse going on. So I think people living that lifestyle should be left in peace as long as the men aren't marrying young girls.

Also, Blondie Bear, the Mormon church doesn't teach this anymore but when the church was first started, men and women were equal, women could hold the priesthood as well as men. Also, the idea behind polygamy was not just for the man to have sex, but mostly for purposes of procreation. However the church no longer gives the women the priesthood, however, you're wrong mostly, the church mostly greatly respects women as a whole so you should probably chill.

Edit:

I agree with most of your points, PV, but there is a distinct difference between telling kids that they need to be good, do unto others, etc. because God wants them to and telling little girls that their entire self-worth hinges on a man, that they're nothing if they don't find a good man and marry him in Temple, etc. And then, if a girl grows up and leaves the church, her family is never allowed to speak to her again. It's pretty harsh.

Are you referring to the actual MORMON church or a specific Mormon fundamentalist group? (There are dozens of those.) Because if you are talking about anything other than just one little fundamentalist group you're quite misinformed, because I know several Mormon girls who are not active in the church and their families did not cut them off in any fashion. And the Mormon church encourages BOTH sexes to find a partner, NOT just women, and also the men and women are encouraged to make decisions TOGETHER.
 
RG: Read the books I mentioned above, and then we'll have this conversation.

Just wanted to point out that while the people who wrote these books probably have valid points, that doesn't mean that ALL Mormons are horrible evil people who want to imprision their women. There are extremists in all religions; you can't let the actions of some dictate your opinion of them all or you get into stereotyping (anyone see my rant in that thread you'd understand that is something I despise with a passion). I'd be careful about letting a book convince you that every single Mormon is like the ones they portray
 
Just wanted to point out that while the people who wrote these books probably have valid points, that doesn't mean that ALL Mormons are horrible evil people who want to imprision their women. There are extremists in all religions; you can't let the actions of some dictate your opinion of them all or you get into stereotyping (anyone see my rant in that thread you'd understand that is something I despise with a passion). I'd be careful about letting a book convince you that every single Mormon is like the ones they portray

No, of course they aren't. But RG is trying to argue that NONE of them are and that I don't know what I'm talking about. So until we're on equal footing with our information, we can't discuss this like rational human beings.
 
I read a couple more articles about the FLDS and polygamy. One is mostly excerpts from a book written by a woman who was a plural wife, but left the FLDS. Another is a Slate story about how the FLDS manages to provide each man with 3 or more wives.

My Life in a Polygamist Compound

Three Girls for Every Boy

A "polygamy primer" assembled for the use of law enforcement, human services, and etc. personnel in AZ and UT.

Polygamy Primer
 
palabravampiress
palabravampiress
Thanks for the links!
polygamists = mormons = cults

sex with underage girls = jail

man being more powerful/smarter than a woman = lame oppression

man being closer to god than a woman = lame excuse for lame oppression
 
I have a problem with the blanket statement that polygamists = Mormons = cults. Let's make clear that the group living on the ranch in Eldorado, Texas was Fundamentalist sect of the Mormon church and as such are a minority. I don't personally know any Mormons (well, one...but we've never actually met 😉) We have a Mormon church in Allen, less than 10 miles from where I live. They're folks the same as everyone. They live, work, play with the kids, have family get togethers, attend church services, etc, etc, just like anyone else. They are not a cult, just another religion....the same as Judaism, Catholicism, Muslim and myriad others.

And, as an aside....it's not like male superiority is unique to the Mormon religion. I do agree that it's lame oppression, but like Cordelia said, "you can bet if religions required a male body part for sacrifice, the world would be atheist like THAT!" or something to that effect, LOL!
 
Back
Top Bottom