Re: Texas Polygamists--sf in real life?

In article <fv3obs$icj$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

> >Including boys because, so the CPS spokesperson argued, they are being 
> >brought up to be abusers? Doesn't that come down to "teaching your 
> >children your religion is child abuse if the religion endorses illegal 
> >behavior?" 
> 
> Following a discussion of this elsewhere, it has been pointed out
> that social workers do not just remove some of the children from a
> home, it's all or nothing.  

In this case, "all" means removing the children of mothers on the 
grounds that other members of their community were accused of having 
gone along with arranged marriages for daughters below the--recently 
raised--age of consent for marriage. Nobody has been convicted of 
anything yet, and since they took all of the children, that has to 
include lots of children of mothers who had no daughters of an age to 
have been married off.

> >On which basis Quakers, communists, and quite a lot of other people 
> >should have their children taken away? 
> 
> Did the Quakers or communists **** their children, or give their
children
> to others to be ****ed?

So far as I know, not even the CPS people have yet accused the FLDS 
people of having *** with their own daughters. 

The Quakers taught a religion, and the communists an ideology, which 
implied that believers ought sometimes to do illegal things. Taking 
their children away corresponds to taking away children to protect them 
from learning a religion that approved of polygamy and young marriages.

-- 
 http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
 Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
 Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now