Let's consider what would happen if Casey's notion were applied more widely to religious groups when abuse arises among their leadership. In all seriousness, why wouldn't the same logic suggest seizing the assets of the Catholic Church? According to them, “The marriageable age is fourteen full years in males and twelve full years in females, under penalty of nullity (unless natural puberty supplies the want of years)." See the Catholic Encyclopedia. That's far younger than any marriage alleged to have occurred among residents of the YFZ Ranch.
Meanwhile, literally thousands of priests allegedly committed sexual abuse of minors, but President Bush met the Pope at the airport and the nation cheered as he said "God Bless America" Comedian Bill Maher recently declared (probably accurately if somewhat bombastically) that "if the pope, instead of a religious figure, was the CEO of a chain of nationwide day care centers who had thousands of employees who had been caught molesting children and then covering it up, he would have been in jail." (Jail, by the way, is where Warren Jeffs is - the question is whether to jail or seize children from his parishioners)
So if the Pope supports marriage of girls as young as age 12, and presides over an organization riddled with child molesters and people who covered for them, why isn't what's good for the goose good for the gander?
Where is the call to seize all Catholic Church owned property? Will that be Casey's next column?
Meanwhile, lots of news cropping up nearly every day now regarding the YFZ raid, and thanks to Grits commenters for linking to a bunch of it:
First, here is the official public notice for DFPS legal proceedings against FLDS parents, published in the Eldorado Success. Whatever your opinion about the case, read every name and pray for the kids.
One month after the massive state raid on the YFZ Ranchin West Texas, the Salt Lake Tribune tallies the topline numbers from the case:
599 DNA samples collected;Some of the primary source documents are coming out on which DFPS allegations were based. A "Bishop's Record" was released yesterday that amounts to a census of every family living at the YFZ Ranch. (See various analyses of the data by readers in Grits' comments.) Can this really be the biggest "smoking gun" the state has? Even if individual abuse cases can be made, the data to me just doesn't justify seizing every kid on the Ranch.
464 children in state custody;
16 group shelters caring for the children;
One warrant canceled;
No charges issued.
In other important news, the warrant against Dale Barlow was finally dropped yesterday, even though Texas Rangers visited him in Arizona weeks ago. The Inspector Clusoe-like investigators at DPS say they're "still investigating" whether the phone call was a hoax, though the likelihood it's not is near zero.
Speaking of support for the warrants, now it turns out authorities already knew their suspect Dale Barlow wasn't at the ranch when they first went in, having spoken to him by phone. To me that casts tremendous doubt on whether authorities really executed the original search warrant in good faith. The Denver Post reports that, according to information included in a court filing by FLDS attorney Gerry Goldstein:
"Prior to executing the initial warrant, (Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran) was advised that Dale Barlow was in Arizona and not on the premises sought to be searched. In fact, prior to entering the premises Sheriff Doran actually spoke to Dale Barlow in Arizona by cellphone, confirming his driver license number and the fact that he was in Arizona," the filing says.
Barlow advised the sheriff that he did not know Sarah Jessop, he had not been to Texas in more than 20 years, nor had he ever been to YFZ Ranch, according to the filing.
If provable, that's a critical fact. A pro-raid attorney at FindLaw wrote recently, "Absent clear evidence that the state fabricated the call or misled the judge who granted the initial search warrant, neither of which seems remotely plausible, the entry cannot be faulted on constitutional grounds. " But these revelations indicate the state had reason to believe their information about Barlow was flawed long before they ever entered the ranch.
Amidst all this, in what's perhaps a back to the future moment, the feds are concluding their investigation of FLDS in Utah and Arizona without pursuing criminal charges (though state charges involving deposed FLDS head Warren Jeffs are still going forward). After a years-long investigation, though:
Given that Texas' search warrant was based on a hoax (which nearly everyone acknowledges except the Inspector Clusoe-like Texas Rangers who say they're "still investigating"), and the state can find no complaining victim, that perhaps gives us a clue of what Texas' investigation may look like several years down the line.The U.S. Attorney's Office said it did not develop enough for subpoenas, search warrants or indictments.
"The fact that everyone may think something's going on ... ask Elliot Ness how easy it was," Tolman said. "He knew, and he knew Al Capone was involved. It still took quite a bit. It takes a lot, and it takes a concerted effort. Even though everyone may be clamoring, it doesn't make for a federal case."
In other odds and ends, if the state of Texas is looking for an expert witness, I think we have a volunteer. The Common Room continues to be an excellent source on the topic, as is the new Free the FLDS Children (non-FLDS affiliated). The blogger at Modern Pharisee, too, is getting pretty animated about the subject. See also a couple of recent articles on the topic by Houston criminal lawyer John Floyd. At blog648, a father discusses the incidence rate of broken bones in his family compared to FLDS.
169 comments:
Damn, Grits - sometimes I get a headache reading your ramblings and trying to follow your logic. Have you ever been checked for obsessive/compulsive disorder?
Let me know if you have any specific questions, otherwise I'll try and use smaller words to help you out. ;)
Too Shay!!!
"The (John Jay) Report found accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA, about 4% of all priests."
So far, there have not be any allegations against any named individuals at the YFZ Ranch, which puts the Catholic Church way ahead of the Fundamentalist Mormons in this competition.
I haven't had the time to count the number of men named in the Bishop's Records who may have had sex with women under the age of 14, and who were the functional equivalents of priests or bishops. If anyone else has made that count, let us know. Then we need to know the total number of men above the age of 18 at the Ranch, and the total number who filled some role as priests or bishops, in order to compare the per centage numbers between Catholic priests and bishops, and men of similar office at YFZ.
As to your question, Grits, as to why seizure of Catholic assets would not be order if seizuer of YFZ assets are, the answer, I suggest, is that most Catholic churches are not really good places for game hunts. I've never seen any reports of deer, turkey, hogs, or exotic game running free in a Catholic Church.
LOL@Grits
Keep up the good work man, I love your forum, I'm always disappointed when I come and there's nothing new about this case. Don't worry too much about the discombobulated anonymous posters, Flora didn't go that far is School.
The big problem with the catholic abuse cases is most of them didn't come to light until after the criminal statute of limitations had elapsed. Asset seizure, at least in Texas, requires a felony.
You probably only need to bulldoze a few pedophile churches to really put people on notice. Landlords are no longer ignoring it when their rentals become crack houses.
Why not target Southern Baptists and others for teaching their children that homosexual behavior is sinful and that practicing gays are in rebellion against God?
After all, children raised like that may grow up to be abusers who beat up gay people as a result. Given that school systems in places like California are actually forcing gay tolerance curricula upon children over the objections of parents, I don't think that it is too far-fetched for CPS social worker types to think that teaching religious objections against homosexual behavior to children is child abuse worthy of removing children from religious families.
"Why wouldn't call for FLDS asset seizure equally apply to Catholicism?"
Perhaps because the RCC is the only religious organization, at least that I know of, where the spiritual head is also a head of state.
Interesting that the Pope's visit coincided with the raid.
Meanwhile, it looks like the head of DFPS (what a Newspeak term!) has his own problems with abuse charges.
When sexual abuse of children becomes part of the doctrine and litany of the Roman Catholic Church -- or the Baptists -- we'll talk about seizing church property.
Beowulf, why exactly is it interesting that the Pope visited the US about the time of the Eldorado raid?
Do you think the Pope is also part of the Great Texas Department of Family Protection Services?
Oops. That should be 'Great Texas Department of Family Protection Services Conspiracy?'
Respectfully, I'd like to point out there is clearly a cesspool of abuse here. The FLDS construct is yet another way for old men to retain power and enslave youth, and that's putting rather too fine a point on it. These are some awful pigs, people, even by the piggy standards we accept from more established sects.
That some Catholics and Baptists and Hindus (and portions of every belief system, ever) have all worked out elaborate constructs to practice oppression does not offer us an excuse to pass on any specific abuse.
This is not said uncritically. This whole thing feels a little like good ole Salem, Mass to me, too: the outsiders are here? Light the torches! find the keys to the dungeon!
But these are children, and they are being abused. The standards for intervention are different -- and they should be. The burden of proof on the state is much lower -- and it should be.
Someday, perhaps, we'll evolve. In the meantime we shouldn't ignore compounds devoted to inbreeding with children just because, hey, the Catholics suck.
Why not confiscate all the assets of Planned Parenthood? It is getting harder by the day to think abortion isn't child abuse and the irony is the extremists are often pro-choice.
Anon 2:06, if those were the facts and not the spin, you might have a decent argument.
Even reviewing the Bishops records, (and I'm not suggesting they are accurate enough to be considered as evidence in a court of law, but they should be accurate enough to determine risk of abuse) I would have expected to see pervasive indications of abuse. I expected to see entries of older men with hoards of younger wifes ( 14- 17 yr olds) attached to their name. I didn't see evidence of this.
While sex with underage girls (or boys) may be a crime, there are few (if any) signs of perversion going on at the compound. All evidence indicates that these people believe in sex for procreation purposes only. To be perverted, it should be evident that they derrived pleasure from sex with younger girls. With as many as 40% (if you use CPS's current numbers) of young girls available, why didn't the men have many more young "brides" while they were available and young? They were saving these young lass' for what purpose, since they common external belief is they are sexual perverts?
I also expected to see many (if not all) of the men over age 50 to have a teen bride. Most girls in their teens were married to men in their early 20's (and all teen girls were of age to be married with parental consent). A great number of married teen girls were in monogamous marriages. Certainly more than the number of teen brides married to men over age 50.
The evidence supporting CPS's intervention is minimal, the evidence for continuing custody of all the children is tenious, the evidence for mass condemnation and persecution is absent. The rumors are only that, rumors. It's time these kids went back home, and it's time CPS had some restraints imposed upon them in the form of good law, not bandaid law.
Anon at 2:03, have you met any of these old men seeking to gain power just to molest young girls as soon as they hit 13? These pigs as you call them aren't, and even if they are they still deserve the same treatment as anyone else, where is it our place to decide when the government can discriminate. A good reference would be http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24351336#24351336
That's the walkthrough given by men to the ranch, or the dungeon as you so put it.
Dave writes: "When sexual abuse of children becomes part of the doctrine and litany of the Roman Catholic Church ... we'll talk about seizing church property"
You mean like the church doctrine cited in the post that 12 year old girls are of marriageable age? By DFPS' logic, that doctrine is abusive on its face if anyone follows it.
I also found it interesting the timing of the Pope's visit, not because I think it's related but because it pointed out precisely the moral disconnect cited in this post. It highlighted the irony of the media hype surrounding much-less provable abuse allegations against FLDS.
To 2:06, simply saying there's a "clearly a cesspool of abuse" doesn't make it true, and certainly not provable. Ask the feds! No one's giving a pass to "any specific abuse." OTOH, no "specific abuse" has yet been alleged, and the supposed abuse that caused the raid was a hoax. By comparison, abuses in the Catholic church are pretty well documented.
"But these are children, and they are being abused."
I am still waiting on proof. This marriage situation is interesting. One man in his late 60's has a 79 year old wife. That sounds more like a support group. The tug of war over Dale Barlow goes on and on. TX DPS wants to make him part of this and the sheriff keeps saying that business with Mr. Barlow has concluded and he is not a person of interest.
Abused kids have the opportunity to speak out. Disgruntled kids have the opportunity to claim abuse.
It isn't happening. A whole lot of people are trying to make them into victims and that is scary. Their lives have been a nightmare since the raid that was based on what people thought they knew.
The FLDS members were fearful of gonvernment and outsiders. At least now they have learned there was nothing to fear. Everyone on the outside only wants to help and always tells the truth.
You mean like the church doctrine cited in the post that 12 year old girls are of marriageable age? By DFPS' logic, that doctrine is abusive on its face if anyone follows it.
Oh good Lord! You realize this item from the Catholic Encyclopedia cites a 1901 text which cites even older church policy -- that tied marriageable age to the laws of the country involved.
The 14 for males; 12 for females cited is drawn from English common law.
Marriageable age in the Catholic church today - as in the Baptist or Episcopal , etc. is the is dependent on state law.
Not so in the FLDS congregation at Eldorado.
So do you still want to make silly comparisons?
I would argue that the silly comparisons being made in this case are those that compare what these families lived as part of their culture as abuse to what they are going through right now.
I will grant a distinction between illegal and abuse, as they are two different words, with two different meanings, and completely different consequences. To try and compare the two or link the two is silly.
Many of these children will have nightmares about these days for years to come, none of the parents will ever stop having them. From this day forward, the abuse these parents will protect most vehemently against will be the abuse of the government.
I wonder...the Bishop's records that were released might not contain records of wives that were under 17 that have given birth because of the nature of that evidence, rape of a minor.
Only 45 pages were released and numbers do not total the entire population at the ranch.
And it will take weeks to go through all the evidence.
And the Feds cannot step in until Federal law has been broken. Now if evidence that minors were transported across state lines for sex - that could be Federal laws.
www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Prayers-for-the-Captive-FLDS-Children
No way are the bishop's records a full reflection of the entire population of YFZ in April 2008.
For instance, where are the records for Willie Jessop and Merrill Jessop?
Grits, you might want to check the work of your commenters before you cite them.
They missed an obvious underage marriage.
Leroy J. Steed, 40
Elizabeth Luverne Jessop, 16 (wife)
Grits, thanks so much for mentioning my blog/site Free the FLDS Children (http://www.flds.ws), it plans to become a major child/parent advocacy group in the future for all children and parents involved with CPS. I also appreciate all of your work here, you're doing a masterful job. And don't let those that call them ramblings get to you (tongue in cheek). Thanks once again, and keep up the great work!
I’ve just finished reading Kenneth C. Davis’ America’s Hidden History, and found a parallel to the FLDS prosecution/persecution in the trial and conviction of Anne Hutchinson of Boston, Massachusetts in 1637.
Ms Hutchinson, who was several months pregnant, spoke out about the areas of the Puritan faith with which she did not agree. As a result she was tried for what amounted to be heresy, judged “not fit for our society”, and banished from Boston. (1)
Not long after Anne Hutchinson’s trial, the Puritans of Boston also decreed prohibitions against Roman Catholics, Quakers, and other “sects” such as Anabaptists. All were banned under pain of death. (2) The Puritan fathers believed that the banishment of Anne Hutchinson – Along with the execution of Quakers, and the banning of Catholics in Massachusetts – would end dissent and bring about God’s blessings on the colony. (3)
During Anne Hutchinson’s trial and during her defense she made the statement; “Therefore take heed what yee go about to doe unto me. For I know that for this God will ruin you and your posterity, and this whole state.” (4)
This might be a prophecy the State of Texas, as well as some of the folks who are ready to throw all the adult members of the FLDS under the jail, would do well to heed today. Of course, we are all infinitely more sophisticated and enlightened in this day and age.
All you people who think you’re doing God’s will in judging and condemning the FLDS need to remember that you shouldn’t try to tell an omnipotent God what he/she/it can and can’t do.
(1) America’s Hidden History p.59
(2) p. 78
(3) p. 79
(4) p. 59
Also, Grits you might find this interesting and some what familiar sounding. Anne Hutchinson gave birth to a malformed fetus some time after her trial and banishment.
The God fearing folks who disagreed with and banished her made statements to the effect that God was punishing her and that she deserved the results of her pregnancy.
Do we never learn?
Anon 2:42
"Certainly more than the number of teen brides married to men over age 50."
The allegedly incriminating "Bishop's Records" show us;
Nephi Jeffs 38
Elizabeth Jessop 16
Lehi Alred 28
Rachel Alred 16
Abram Jeffs 35
Suzanne Jeffs 16
Leroy J. Steed 40*
Elizabeth Jessop, 16
***************************
In response to some comments here, I'd like to mention that Grits post telling that the Bishop's records "...amounts to a census of every family living at the YFZ Ranch" may or may not be accurate. The records are for various times, most 2007.
***************************
*Hat Tip to Betty Lou on the last record there, which I certainly had overlooked.
My apology, my fault, not the fault of any others here.
That's one benefit of a civil discussion!
Dave in texas
"When sexual abuse of children becomes part of the doctrine and litany of the Roman Catholic Church -- or the Baptists -- we'll talk about seizing church property."
Have you read any Bible ever?
WW W
"Ms Hutchinson, who was several months pregnant, spoke out about the areas of the Puritan faith with which she did not agree. As a result she was tried for what amounted to be heresy, judged “not fit for our society”, and banished from Boston."
Considering what the Bible does say about all conduct that may be violations of the law in this mess, it's more like burning them at the stake for observing parts of the Bible all others decided are unacceptable today. Similar to a re-write in an effort to allow or promote "prosecution / persecution" in a manner the majority has decided would be approved of by you-know-who.
All interesting - paints a picture of the political settings - but not of any value in looking at how laws apply to the case.
Have you read any Bible ever?
Why, yes, kbp, thanks for asking.
But the topic was the sophistry of comparing sexual assault of minors in the FLDS and the Roman Catholic Church.
One (FLDS) has polygamy (what we normally call 'bigamy' and sexual assault of minors as part of t heir doctrine. The Catholic church does not.
One (FLDS) has polygamy (what we normally call 'bigamy' and sexual assault of minors as part of t heir doctrine.
Bigamy, yes. Sexual assault of minors, no. I am not aware of any FLDS doctrine requiring that girls be minor when they 'marry.' Are you?
I asked this question in the previous FLDS post, not realizing this newer one was up- so just in case somebody who could answer it missed it.
TXB said, regarding the young men married to teenagers: "Being the first or only wife would be a defense only if they complied with the parental consent law as noted above. "
I understand this is the law in Texas. Is the way marriage to 16 year olds works in every state, and
would this be true if they'd legally gotten married outside of Texas? (I have no idea if this is the case, but then, neither does the state of Texas).
You're right, headmistress. Sexual assault of minors may not be doctrine of the FLDS. It does appear to accepted practice.
The thing that we should all be concerned about here is that the state of Texas has come very close, in fact dangerously close to criminalizing a belief. These people are being vilified in the press for what they believe, or at least what people think they believe, and not for any acts that have been charged or proven. CPS has justified taking the children based on what they (CPS) think the FLDS believe, not on anything they actually did, or can prove they did. CPS convinced Judge Walther to sign off on removing all the children based on what abuses CPS thinks the FLDS might commit in the future, based on what they think they believe.
They have successfully made the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints a de facto illegal religion.
Think about that. Here in the United States of America, an illegal religion.
Actually it's not the first time it's happened in America. But who would have thought such a thing could happen here in this country in this century? Certainly not I.
Dave, you write, "Marriageable age in the Catholic church today - as in the Baptist or Episcopal , etc. is the is dependent on state law."
That's also true for FLDS, whose position on these topics dates to before 1901. You're talking in circles. I don't notice any support for your position in the Catholic Encyclopedia article I linked to, which doesn't say the ages mentioned are specific to England. The church says they're ready at puberty, but also so says they should follow secular laws. Those positions don't contradict each other.
The Catholic Church says girls are ready for marriage at puberty for one simple reason: The alternative is a lot of unwed mothers. Marriage is a religious sacrament. Acquiescing to laws of the state is a matter of convenience, but God decides when girls are ready to have children, not legislatures.
My point isn't that Catholics should be prosecuted (except for specific cases of abuse), but that when you start making unfriendly anti-religious assumptions in order to target FLDS, they tend to cut both directions.
Also Dave, couldn't you argue (if you want to rely on the most unfriendly possible assumptions, like you do with FLDS) that although not "doctrine," it was long an "accepted practice" to tolerate child molestation in the Catholic Church? How many of those 4,000+ priests are still employed today by the Vatican? Catholics tolerated a lot more cases of abuse than FLDS, by a longshot.
Maybe when he gets out of jail, the President can meet Warren Jeffs at the airport.
Grits, Charles Kiker here:
Blog 648 cites his children's record of broken bones. I was talking to Gary Gardner at Joe Moore's funeral. Gary had five kids and six broken bones, including a broken nose and broken jaw. The latter two clear evidence of child abuse. I think Texas should eliminate the statute of limitations on child abuse retroactively and charge Gary with two counts. It wouldn't be any problem to get convictions in Swisher County. With Judge Self presiding the sentences could run consecutively and that should put Gary away for life.
Rev. Charles again:
About Catholics, it's not feasible because there are too many of them, just as there are too many Baptists. But take the Amish, there are not very many of them and they have valuable assets. They are clearly subversive to the American way of life, driving around in buggies and wearing long beards and the women wearing long hair and long dresses. I say let's get rid of them.
Now to bloggers who don't know me, before you get your panties in a wad I will make it clear that I'm being facetious.
Dave in texas (lower case 't')
Previous AND last comments
"When sexual abuse of children becomes part of the doctrine..."
AND
"... topic was the sophistry of comparing... part of t heir doctrine..."
The Bible argument is not one I use, you brought it up.
I can't wait for you to point out any specific parts of the New or Old Testament that condemns any for being in a plural marriage that involves a girl that has reached puberty.
The "sophistry" is that we have seen no evidence that such conduct took place at the ranch. Using any religion, any that follows the Bible as their "doctrine", to establish moral guidelines for this case is hypocritical.
You may want to read the Bible again.
Grits
"Maybe when he gets out of jail, the President can meet Warren Jeffs at the airport."
HEADLINES:
Dubya I meets Dubya II
This one should stir the fires!
International Sex Slave Trade?
Grits,
If you can prove a felony offense that triggers the forfeiture law, then sure, go for it. All should be treated the same.
I am more interested in filing on Bishops that did not report child abuse, not that I think that it will happen. By the Church moving these pedophiles from parish to parish, they put a huge number of children at risk.
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff; "...Texas child protective services officials have said in court that the children on the YFZ Ranch were growing up in a culture that lends itself to abuse. Shurtleff said he can't reach the same conclusion."
"Let's say you're a 6-month-old girl, no evidence whatsoever of any abuse. They're simply saying, 'You, in this culture, may grow up to be a child bride when you're 14. Therefore we're going to remove you now when you're 6 months old,"' he said. "Or, 'You're a 6-month-old boy; 25, 30 years, 40 years from now you're going to be a predator, so we're going to take you away now."
Just for political humor;
"[U.S. Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid is full of crap," Shurtleff fumed in a TV interview."
KBP, the Startlegram article is the same one that I linked to from a "pro-raid attorney" in this post. However, it was clearly written before revelations about the pre-raid confirmations concerning Dale Barlow. She thinks it improbable authorities knew ahead of time Barlow wasn't there, and in fact we now know the Sheriff had such knowledge.
I'm kind of surprised the Startlegram reprinted it given the new information out this week. Her arguments are a little dated.
Grits,
Thanks!
I go through so many articles that it is difficult to keep track of them.
You have been THE source for many articles.
This may be another you have posted, but it did not show me as registered as I try to comment there. Something I do always if I see inaccurate information.
Thanks again for all the efforts you've made to keep YOUR readers up to date on what is fact versus fiction.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, Grits.
I don't see the equivilency you and others here between the bigamy and apparent sexual assaults on minors girls in the FLDS and the sex scandals in the Catholic Church.
The sexual assaults of children by Catholic priests are horrible and the hierarchy dealt with the scandal abysmally.
But priests and ex-priests have been sent to prison for their crimes and that's as it should be.
Various dioceses have paid out millions of dollars in damages in civil suits. And they should pay for the decades of hiding the problem and putting more kids at risk.
But no where did church officials or the laity defend priestly sex abuse as a legitimate part of their faith.
The FLDS may not like to think of 'spiritual unions between adults males and underage females as sexual assault. But that appears to be the result under Texas law. We'll see what happens in court, I suppose.
And KBP, I took up your suggestion and looked in the New Testament.
There, in the gospel of Matthew, Jesus says, Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
And Paul the Apostle in his letters to Timothy delivers his famous view on marriage.
He's not all for it, you remember, but if the Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons of the faith are to be married, "...they should be the husband of one wife...".
Tekle v. US (9th Cir. 2006) 457 F.3d 1088
Ninth Circuit Rules that Handcuffing and Pointing Guns at 11-Year-Old Child During Warrant Execution Supports Civil Liability Claims
Child abuse?
The US Supreme Court ruled that an anonymous tip cannot generally supply the reasonable suspicion required to justify an investigative detention. Florida v. J.L. (2000) 529 US 266.
"Maybe when he gets out of jail, the President can meet Warren Jeffs at the airport."
You know, my respect for this blog just went down about 85% with that remark. Equating Warren Jeffs with Pope Benedict XVI? That's just malicious.
At most, 4% of Catholic priests who served between 1950 and 2002 were accused of child sexual abuse. Accused. The rate of abuse among public school teachers is likely MUCH higher - between 6% and 10% of public school children have reported sexual abuse at the hands of a teacher or school employee.
Many Catholic bishops were certainly negligent, and some criminally so. A very small number were even complicit. The vast majority of cases were due to the incredible stupidity of opening the doors of the priesthood to homosexual men after the liberal "reforms" of the Second Vatican Council.
One of the first things Benedict did as Pope was to reaffirm the traditional ban on the admittance of men with homosexual tendencies to the seminaries. He has also disciplined numerous abusers, including the much revered head of Legionaries of Christ, the allegations against whom have not been proven but were serious enough to merit censure.
The Pope is a genuinely holy man who has never been suspected of any kind of sexual impropriety. Warren Jeffs is a deranged lunatic who is behind bars where he belongs. To suggest moral equality between them is reprehensible.
Re: the Pope and Jeffs - your criticism is fair, and I'm sorry to reduce your respect for the blog. That said, I was being facetious to make a point, and declared in a previous comment I was NOT saying what's happening to FLDS should happen with the Catholic Church.
However the scale of Catholic abuse scandals far dwarfs anything alleged at the YFZ Ranch, and should not be minimized. In addition, the papal ban on homosexual priests has nothing to do with pedophilia. The two ideas are simply unrelated. Gay people are not all pedophiles, and vice versa.
In addition, I don't really give much credit to the comment that Benedict "disciplined many abusers," given how many remain in the Church's employ "allegations against whom have not been proven but were serious enough to merit censure." I don't think the church under the last Pope, or this one, demonstrated a particularly stern attitude toward child molesters in their employ, and I'm not alone in that view.
"The Pope is a genuinely holy man who has never been suspected of any kind of sexual impropriety. Warren Jeffs is a deranged lunatic who is behind bars where he belongs. To suggest moral equality between them is reprehensible."
One could say
"The pope is a former nazi, who now leads the catholic church which shuffles child-rapist priests around so they stay under the radar of the law. Warren Jeffs is a holy man who was wrongfully arrested and convicted in an unprecidented trial, determined mostly by hearsay"
See, by being subjective, you can swing the bat both ways, I personally don't agree with either statements, and think it's a fallacy to say either one.
fred said:
"Tekle v. US (9th Cir. 2006) 457 F.3d 1088
Ninth Circuit Rules that Handcuffing and Pointing Guns at 11-Year-Old Child During Warrant Execution Supports Civil Liability Claims
Child abuse?"
Uh, fred?
You did know that this opinion (457 F.3d 1088) was withdrawn, right?
See Tekle v. United States (9th Cir. 2006) 511 F.3d 839
tx, thanks for the update. No, I didn't know. Same result though.
Tekle v. United States (9th Cir. 2006) 511 F.3d 839
CONCLUSION
Viewing the facts and drawing all inferences in Tekle’s favor, we conclude that the alleged facts show a violation of Tekle’s constitutional rights. We further conclude that a reasonable officer should have known that it was constitutionally excessive to use such force and to use the handcuffs in the manner alleged against an unarmed eleven-year-old child who was fully complying with the officer’s requests.
BTW, I agree with those who think the FLDS v Catholic issue is reaching for controversy. While Grits is arguing the domino theory, and rightfully so, I think, it is too easily sidetracked. There is likely a better choice to argue it. My vote would be for Planned Parenthood, but that went nowhere. :)
"That said, I was being facetious to make a point, and declared in a previous comment I was NOT saying what's happening to FLDS should happen with the Catholic Church."
I appreciate the clarification, though it falls short of a retraction.
"However the scale of Catholic abuse scandals far dwarfs anything alleged at the YFZ Ranch, and should not be minimized."
The Catholic Church and the FLDS are apples and oranges when it comes to scale. You might say that an elephant has more pimples on its nose than a chipmonk, but just one pimple can totally distort the nose of a chipmonk.
"In addition, the papal ban on homosexual priests has nothing to do with pedophilia. The two ideas are simply unrelated."
That is untrue. Over 90% of all abuse cases in the United States during this period involved adolescent boys. Contrast this to what happens in third world countries. When there is sexual impropriety among priests in the Philippines or South America, it typically involves an adult mistress, not a teenage boy.
While not all homosexuals are pedophiles - indeed most are not - homosexual men have a far higher *rate* of child sexual abuse and molestation than heterosexual men. Homosexuals comprise a small minority of the population (1% to 2%), but they constitute one third of all child molesters.
According to one Justice Department study, there were 150.2 boys molested for every male homosexual offender, constrasted with 19.8 girls per male heterosexual offender.
Etc., etc. There are mountains of data on the subject for anyone interested in the truth.
"In addition, I don't really give much credit to the comment that Benedict 'disciplined many abusers,' given how many remain in the Church's employ ..."
You must have some knowledge I am lacking, then. How many abusers remain today in the Church's employ?
"I don't think the church under the last Pope, or this one, demonstrated a particularly stern attitude toward child molesters in their employ, and I'm not alone in that view."
I must concede that this is true of the last Pope. It has been a puzzle for many. One researcher said that JP-II habitually dismissed allegations of homosexuality in the priesthood due to his experiences in his native Poland. Apparently it was the custom of the Nazis, first, and then the Communists, to ruin the reputations of their enemies by false allegations of homosexuality. I don't know, but it was definitely a salient flaw in his papacy.
As for Benedict, who has been Pope for three short years, he has probably done more in three years than his predecessor did in twenty.
"BTW, I agree with those who think the FLDS v Catholic issue is reaching for controversy. While Grits is arguing the domino theory, and rightfully so, I think ..."
I think our blog host is correct about the domino theory, and I've been making the same argument myself on different grounds.
"... it is too easily sidetracked."
Apparently so.
"There is likely a better choice to argue it."
Indeed. We ought to start with the Texas foster care system (or that of any state), and move on to the public school system, where sexual abuse is endemic. Hopefully the at-risk children in these organizations will be rescued by Texas authorities any day now ...
fred, fred, fred….
Such a nice try….[in re Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)]
Unfortunately, it is also so wrong in its application to this case. J.L. stated that an anonymous tip, in and by itself, was not enough to justify a search. That is not what happened in this case.
Please look at the following cases.
United States v. Alverez, 451 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2006), which showed that the law enforcement corroboration of the anonymous tip was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause.
United States v. Arjona-Martinez, 66 Fed. Appx. 525 (5th Cir. 2003), which showed that the law enforcement corroboration of the tip was sufficient to support a finding of reasonable suspicion for the subsequent stop of the vehicle.
Blevins v. State, 74 S.W.3d 125 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2002), which showed that the law enforcement corroboration of the tip was sufficient to support a finding of reasonable suspicion for the subsequent stop of the vehicle.
Fred, did you see what just happened? It appeared to me that Txbluesguy made one of his trade-marked off-the-cuff, poorly researched statements of the law, only to have you show he was incorrect. Is that what happened?
tx, please don't stop with the head-notes of those cases. Tell us what the corroboration was in each case.
Jeff, I didn't "retract" my comments because I don't regret them. I only clarified what I meant.
Honestly it disturbs me a bit to see you downplaying Catholic church abuse, comparing to public schools, etc., to try to minimize what happened. I won't quibble with you about how many of the thousands of priests identified are still working for the church. Comparing the percentage to some huge number - the stars in the sky, perhaps - you'd likely find a way to downplay it. But the super-aggressive approach to the FLDS case is sure something no one in either the church or civil authorities ever tried with Catholic priests, under the last Pope or this one.
I'm similarly unimpressed with your argument that I should give Benedict credit because, instead of going after individual allegations of abuse or ousting bishops who'd covered for abusers, he opportunistically used the issue to purge homosexuals from the clergy who may or may not have molested anyone, whatever (you say is) the relative likelihood. That's using the cloak of "reform" to further an anti-gay agenda that doesn't actually address specific abuse cases, and it earns him no favor with this writer.
My overall point was made precisely by the facetiousness of the comment that offended you, and I stand by it in that context: Many FLDS critics, particularly on the left and (a certain faction of) the Christian Right, take a cynical, essentially anti-religious attitude toward the group (or anti- any but their own), combine it with unfriendly assumptions about strange people, and convince themselves as the Houston Chronicle columnist did, of the righteousness of positions that are fundamentally unjust. However, as William put it, "the bat swings both ways."
BTW, if you didn't see it, there was more discussion along these lines (Christianity's culpability in values not dissimilar to FLDS, not catholicism) in this post.
Once more...
In looking at the Bishop's records CPS submitted in court, I was struck by how many of the family members were not in Texas in 2007, but were in Idaho, Short Creek, or Hildale (I am assuming Short Creek is Colorado City), and some 'elsewhere.
This renders it ever more plausible that some marriages happened outside of Texas (indeed, we know they did, since the community has only been in Texas since around 2004, give or take a year).
So.... Might they have been married out of state? and if they were, what does this do to Texas Blues' claim that the marriages to 16 year olds (and we have yet to see a single marriage younger than that) are only 'legal' with parental consent if they complied with Texas law requiring they be the first or only wife, and the parents have filed all the paperwork and legal notice TBM has told us about before?
Good question, headmistres!!!
The kind of question a good lawyer might have asked BEFORE seizing all the kids.
I had asked if marriages in other states would effect the Texas case in a previous comment or two, but not in such a detailed manner.
Another question that had crossed my mind concerns what I'll call "spiritual divorces". Such are evidently very easy in that church. I wonder if any had "spiritual divorces" from their other wives before marrying 16 YO's.
That looks like a possible way to beat the Texas law.
Dave in texas;
And KBP, I took up your suggestion and looked in the New Testament.
There, in the gospel of Matthew, Jesus says, Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
And Paul the Apostle in his letters to Timothy delivers his famous view on marriage.
He's not all for it, you remember, but if the Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons of the faith are to be married, "...they should be the husband of one wife...".
The act that created Jesus is what would be recognized as illegal today, as would many others you'll find. I did not say I see it as sin.
Then Paul the Apostle approved of polygyNy for all men except the church leaders, if you except "mia" to be translated as ONLY meaning "ONE"... but then it can also be translated to mean "FIRST".
You'll always lose by trying to condemn the conduct of the FLDS using the the Bible...
Can't recall if it has been linked here, but even if it has the Local Crank has a good blog worthy of another link or two!
Doran, yes that is what happened. And did you happen to notice you asked him "what law enforcement corroboration"?
LOL. That answer should be interesting. Frankly, I still suspect the "16-year-old"caller knew someone close to the raid and that is why that entire investigation is hush-hush. Is it any wonder the media can't find her?
Clarification: by 16-year-old caller I mean "33 year old Colorado resident Rozita Swinton who was good at acting."
doran,
You don't read very well anymore, do you?
If you look at the post on the withdrawn opinion, all I stated was that it was withdrawn, not that the basic information was bad.
And since you requested it, here is the information on Alverez. You're a lawyer, you have the cites, you can look up the others.
Alverez, the police received an anonymous tip on drug dealing. Their corroboration established that address was correct, that they had sold drugs from that location in the past, and that they had kept both drugs and paraphernalia at that location in the past. The court noted "Taking the information presented in the affidavit as a whole, the tip hardly required any additional corroboration because it fit with the preestablished pattern of criminal activity. Nevertheless, the tip was sufficiently corroborated."
Gee, doesn't that sound suspiciously like the amount of corroboration in the FLDS case?
I guess that doesn't bode well for your pedophile friends.
Tx is clearly getting desperate.
I don't need scripture to condemn the practices of the FLDS that involve bigamy and sexual assault on minors, KBP.
But how you can interpret Paul's message to endorse polygamy is simply amazing.
And TxBluesMan, I admire your perseverance. And your patience.
tx, you discredited yourself.
Readers should read for themselves if tx's quote is representative of the opinion. Interesting reading. United States v. Alverez, 451 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2006)
Here is an actually relevant quote from the opinion:
Evidence obtained pursuant to "objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant" will not be suppressed "even if the warrant is subsequently invalidated." United States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir.1999) (citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984)). An officer's reliance on the warrant is not objectively reasonable and, therefore, not entitled to the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule if: (1) "the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth;" (2) "the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role;" (3) an officer "relies on a warrant based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render belief in its existence entirely unreasonable;" or (4) the warrant is "so facially deficient — i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized — that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid." Cherna, 184 F.3d at 407-08 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
David or Dave in texas (?),
One of you two (or same?) were responsible for having used scriptures here.
Sorry if I confused which, if you are not the same person.
I do not approve of sexual assault on minors.
and...
Regarding Paul's message, that is the response I anticipated from any that would use it TRY and point out the scriptures do not approve.
Any would need to read much more than just that message to understand it, including a bit of Greek translation.
fred,
Do you even know what you are looking at?
That is an internal quote from the Cherna case, note from the Alvarez case. It goes to the standard that the court uses to review the denial of a suppression motion.
The court upheld the August 24 warrant, after applying this standard and finding that the police were credible and their corroboration supported a finding of probable cause.
The quote I cited was on the January 28 warrant, which, as was shown in the quote, was also found to have supported a finding of probable cause.
Some of the convictions of Alvarez were overturned on other grounds, some were upheld, but required new sentencing hearings, again, on other grounds.
The findings on the warrants and that there was probable cause is clearly on point in this case.
Absent a showing that the officers intentionally deceived the judge, which there is no evidence to support, the warrants would be good.
If you have some such evidence, please share it with us.
Jeez, Fred. If you don't understand the law, don't argue legal points.
At least with Doran, I don't have to explain how to read case law, even though he is usually on the wrong side of the argument.
TBM
"Absent a showing that the officers intentionally deceived the judge, which there is no evidence to support, the warrants would be good."
If there is any accuracy to what Goldstein claims, it sure looks like the arrest warrant for Dale Barlow was intentional BS, which then leaves Sarah's anonymous calls in need of corroboration.
Imagine reading about Sarah's calls, followed by the Barlow communication, as the definition of "good faith" in Texas!
;)
tx, bull. You wrote "And since you requested it, here is the information on Alverez."
I quoted Alverez, which quotes Cherna, to point out your misrepresentation. Do you know how to read an opinion? The link is to Alverez, the quote is from Alvarez, which quotes Cherna.
The basis for the Alvarez warrant was nothing like the present FLDS case. They already had proof of prior sales and drug trafficking before they got any anonymous tip. There was mucho other evidence to support the anonymous tip in Alvarez. Here, there is none, and not only is there none, there is some evidence LE knew it was bogus because they knew Mr. Barlow was not in the state (and I'm betting they knew about Swinton too, or someone closely involved knew, but they didn't expect the media to break it down).
An officer's reliance on the warrant is not objectively reasonable and, therefore, not entitled to the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule if: (1) "the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth;,"
Since they didn't even attempt to corroborate the reliability of of the anonymous tip, as was done in Alverz, it was "reckless disregard of the truth" even if they had no knowledge that Swinton was a hoax.
Don't get all high and mighty because of your a sloppy cite and bad representation and inability to read an opinion.
Alverez doesn't support your position at all.
This, I think, is the foundation of Goldstien's writ.
Temple used for sex with young girls, officials say
"In a court motion filed by Goldstein seeking relief from the search warrants, he said FLDS members “James Jessop, Rulon Keat and Luke Jessop were present and praying as officers drug them out of the way to gain entry to the temple. Officers were also observed firing weapons into the woods on the northwest corner of the temple as they entered the temple gates.”"
Back to the child abuse by police.
To kbp: Is there any Biblical or historical "evidence" of Mary's age at the time she married Joseph?
Didn't mean to confuse anyone, KBP. I hit the wrong button again.
I would never hold myself out as an expert on scripture. You asked for a verse to support the Christian viewpoint of monogamy. I found one.
The Bible is a profound and complex work -- but there's enough contradictions to confuse anyone -- such as the two creation stories in Genesis.
But Greek translation or otherwise, I still believe your suggestion that Paul can be interpreted as condoning polygamy is 10 ways from wrong.
So, I have to ask: Are you really trying to say that the Bible supports polygamy? I understand there are those who interpret that to be the case. That doesn't make it correct.
Star-Telegram staff
does better without help from Marci Hamilton.
Doran,
The estimates are 12-15 YO, FWIW, from many studies.
David in texas,
"...So, I have to ask: Are you really trying to say that the Bible supports polygamy? "
Not for...
"Bishops,
Presbyters and
Deacons " hah hah!!
...but, my position was that it does not condemn it.
I'd actually have to ask you what "Bible" you're talking about, or is it the Gospel, if you want to read parts from either that support polygyny?
"One (FLDS) has polygamy (what we normally call 'bigamy' and sexual assault of minors as part of t heir doctrine. The Catholic church does not."
Dave, the Catholic Canon recognizes marriage starting at 12 for females, 14 for males, unless they start