It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CPS Questioning Children At Polygamist Compound, Could This be Another Waco Incident?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Still not seeing where I said Christians should be gathered up and killed...
Since it is clear you are going off on a tangent with no basis please U2U me if you wish to continue this discussion further at is has no application in this thread.


I corrected myself up above and admitted your comment was not about killing Christians but about your 'thumbs up' attitude in a news story about two missionaries being killed because you did not approve of their training camps. However, you then excuse child rape as being a cultural thing and that we have no right to condemn. In your eyes, murdering two Christian missionaries is to be applauded while Christians speaking out against child rape are being told to live and let live. Does the contradiction not stand out?

And, yes, it is on topic because it ties into your statements based on the article in the OP.

[edit on 4/9/2008 by AshleyD]




posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
reply to post by AshleyD
 




reply to post by sizzle
 

When did I say I was an atheist?


Laws based on a moral foundation are by default unfounded. If this sect has not extended their consent to be governed by the State of Texas, known for bigoted tenants such as forbidding homosexual intercourse, what right do you have to force governance upon them?

Did I call you an Atheist?
This sect is existing on Texas soil and is under it's laws whether they like it or not.
We can go round and round on whether people approve of their behavior and beliefs, but the facts remain. They have to abide by the laws of Texas and the U.S. government, the same as you and I. Their beliefs do not change this.


apc

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by sizzle
 

Your "little guidebook" is rendered null and void by the First Amendment.

I stand with you in calling these activities disgusting. But I stand against you in any attempt to outlaw them or maintain their illegality.

Again, in case you didn't bother to scroll up and read my posts _slowly_, if rape is involved here, SO BE IT. Throw them in prison. But arranging a marriage between a 13 year-old and a 50 year-old is not rape. It's just cultural tradition. Something absent harm the law can not be allowed to touch because that law is based on bias and therefore completely without merit. Try to convince these people that their culture is wrong all day long. As long as you don't force them to agree, that's fine. But the moment you draw a gun and try to make them change their ways your actions cross into the realm of evil. You become what you think you hate.

>
reply to post by sizzle
 

Our laws apply with the consent of the governed. Just because a man is born under a tyrannical regime does not mean he is endowed by his creator with the duty to obey that regime.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by apc]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 





But arranging a marriage between a 13 year-old and a 50 year-old is not rape.


It is in America!!!



The phrase statutory rape is a general term used to describe sexual relations that take place when an individual (regardless of age or gender) has consensual sexual relations with an individual not old enough to legally consent to the behavior.[1] Although it usually refers to adults engaging in sex with minors under the age of consent,[1] the age at which individuals are considered competent to give consent to sexual conduct, it is a generic term, and very few jurisdictions use the actual term "statutory rape" in the language of statues.[2] Different jurisdictions use many different statutory terms for the crime, such as "sexual assault," "rape of a child," "corruption of a minor," "carnal knowledge of a minor," or simply "carnal knowledge." Statutory rape differs from forcible rape in that overt force or threat need not be present. The laws presumes coercion, because a minor or mentally retarded adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


Are you missing the point on purpose?
I said that it is illegal in the state of Texas for a person, fifteen years of age or younger to enter into marriage, EVEN with parental consent.
I did not make the law, but I have to obey it.

Just to show you the diff, I got married at the age of fifteen with parental consent, in another state. But it was not forced. I believed myself to be in love with that young man, and he believed himself in love with me. After much coercion on both our parts, we cajoled our parents into giving consent.
That is the diff between states. It is also the diff between marrying by choice and for love.


apc

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by sizzle
 

Who gave the State that right? What right does the State have to decide whether or not two people are to be married? Does the State get to decide if you're in love enough or not? Or is it just some arbitrary age some bureaucrat pulled out of their hat that sets the bar? You yourself went around the laws of your land (I'm assuming by your previous wordings that you are a resident of Texas) to enjoy the freedom of choice. Why do you feel it is appropriate to deny such a freedom upon these people?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


We could argue that issue till the cows come home, but it changes nothing. The law is the law, and if you value your freedom, it is a good idea to try to obey it to the best of your ability.
I'm sure there are many laws on the books I disagree with; but I have to obey them. I do not like paying taxes, but I must.
I did not like it when they ripped prayer from the schools, but I have to obey.
Such is life.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
reply to post by sizzle
 

You yourself went around the laws of your land (I'm assuming by your previous wordings that you are a resident of Texas) to enjoy the freedom of choice. Why do you feel it is appropriate to deny such a freedom upon these people?

Maybe you had better read my post a little more carefully.
I stated that when I did this, I lived in a different state, other than Texas.


apc

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
If you want your freedom you had better obey the laws?

That's kind of contradictory is it not?

I read your post. If I go to California to receive medical herbs and bring them back to Missouri, I'm going around the law of Missouri, yes?

>
You see my meaning... like I said I assumed. If you lived in that other state fine. But if you expect(ed) Texas to recognize the marriage my point stands.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by apc]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


No it's against federal law. So it is not even legal in California either.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


Oh goodness, you go out of your way to miss the point. Let me spell it out.
I was not born and raised in the state of Texas. Are you following me so far?
I did not move to the state of Texas till several years ago.
Does that clear things up. Do you need further assistance with this?
Edit: one further illustration that might be helpful. I got legally married in the state that I was born and raised in and this state was not, repeat, NOT, Texas.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by sizzle]


apc

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I addressed that in my edit.

If you are still in the marriage that the State of Texas has deemed illegal, do you still expect Texas to recognize and honor that marriage?

If so, why?

You're caught in this mindset of, "Good is only good if the State says so." If you want to live your life at the behest of the State, that's fine. It's your life and you can live it however you want. But this is these peoples' lives. They can live them however they want, too. Just because they were born within the confines of some imaginary lines in the dirt does not mean they are obligated to obey the commands of whatever king has been appointed to rule over that section of dirt. Even if that king is a pool of tyrants known as a democratic majority. You advocate slavery. I advocate freedom. If this is where we ultimately disagree, so be it.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by sizzle
 


On account of they may not have caught everyone yet, and they don't know for sure that the fellow knows he's wanted on charges. If they don't then they need to keep the name underwraps, and hope he turns up. Most likely his name is out, but only for the police, and not been released to the media. While it makes it harder for the police to get tips, it also means the fellow won't drop off the radar, and instead try to sneak by and get caught.
I read in the paper today that the mothers of the children were also taken off with the bus, but it was this morning at work, so I don't have the paper infront of me.
Peronally, I hope these fellows get introduced to Bubba and the man mountain called "Susie",



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


No I am not still in the confines of that marriage. And looking back, I wish that state had laws on the books to protect children from entering into 'adult oriented unions.' I am sure that you will disagree, and frankly I don't care if you disagree. That is my opinion. And being one who has experienced it first hand, I think I might know what I am talking about. Maybe not. But that is my opinion and I will not change my mind about it.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by sizzle
 


Now since people came forward from the compound, and confirmed that it is a mormon branch. We can see if theres possibility if any freemasonic involvement!

On the news most of the people that were taken out of the place were literally brainwashed, like most polygamous groups. They actually claimed to be the "real" mormons, unlike that of the LDS. Much of the adult males didnt seem to realize anything vile had taken place either. Sad


These kinds of things are being practiced all over our country is the sad thing, and nobodies doing anything about it! Nobody will ever mention who started the mormon religion, why it was started and exactly how. These are things that are kept out of the western media.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 04:24 AM
link   
I posted this (below) one day before these events apparently started. I've had one eye over here since then. The way things are shaping up, it is eerily reminiscent of Waco.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Quite frankly, when Jan. 8 passed without major incident (by my calc. that was 911 days after 7-7-05 London -- for that line of thought that I never verified, as I didn't want to count more -- lol)... I'm surprised I didn't get anyone on board with me on this. Each day that passes, we get closer and closer and it begins to appear to be the semi-major "sacrificial" event I've been looking for. I do have one other possible one listed on my other post.
(Admittedly, I screwed up with my early posts and should have posted that thread elsewhere... probably would have got some support/comments)

[edit on 4/10/2008 by RabbitChaser]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sizzle
 
Well, I am happy it did not end like Waco ,but as it stand now I am not happy that the kids are in foster care. As strange as it sounds the girls under fourteen and the boys should have been left with the cult. There are not that many good foster care families in Texas. I am worried about the fate of scrubbed pristine little girls and boys being handed off in mass to a state child care sytem which can not come to gripps with the terrible way that many foster care children are abused physically and sexually.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by eradown
 


Sad as it is to admit.
There probably will be no happy ending here, no matter what.
My intention is to pray for these children.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Just saw a little piece on the news. They interviewed allot of the wives of polygamist. The ones they interviewed were very happy with their life style.
They probably want to get the young women married as soon as possible.
So they don't get seduced by the secular world; and end up teenage
prostitutes, slaves to pimps and drug addicts. Like so many other "free", teenage girls do.
The government probable doesn't want this life style to grow. Because of the loose of income taxes. The women, mostly seem not to have jobs. The people often live communally.


[edit on 12-4-2008 by Howie47]

[edit on 12-4-2008 by Howie47]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Hey Sizzle,

I think that instead of taking all these kids and women away... they should be taking the men away. Place a restraining order on them that says they can have no contact until things get straightened out..

This has to be terribly traumatic for the children, much less these young mothers. The compound could be safeguarded by female deputies or female federal agents, or female advocates. Let the women and children live in their homes.

The old men are the problem... why punish the victims?

yr

[edit on 15-4-2008 by yankeerose]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join