Reader comments
ACLU weighs in on FLDS raid

Page:
1
2
Next >

A First | 12:23 p.m. May 7, 2008

Hell just froze over: I'm agreeing with the ACLU.

Freedom_Fighter | 12:24 p.m. May 7, 2008

THANK GOD! Finally a political organization is expressing an intelligent opinion!!!

Now we need to see the ACLU actually put their money where their mouth is and get involved in this case. The FLDS raid could very well be the biggest violation of personal and civil rights since the Civil Rights Movement. It certainly is the largest child custody case in U.S. History and could very well be the largest civil rights case with a religion.

As much as I strongly disagree with many positions of the ACLU it's nice to see that they might redeem themselves by actually championing the rights of REAL innocent victims! Individuals victimized by the people sworn to protect and defend them in their personal and civil rights guaranteed by the constitution!

Interested Observer | 12:26 p.m. May 7, 2008

Aha! Now we see the reason for the delay in ACLU taking a stand on this issue: they're still scratching their heads about which side to jump in on.

Comments continue below

Johnny come lately | 12:28 p.m. May 7, 2008

Interesting that the ACLU makes no comment or does nothing when families are separated by FLDS religious leaders because a member of the family is out of favor. Also interesting that the ACLU makes no comment about the practice of excluding and abandoning teenage boys who end up in St. George and surrounding communities. Where is their concern for due process for those within this community???

I guess they are about as concerned about these abuses as they are about defending those concerned with their second amendment rights.

ACLU? | 12:30 p.m. May 7, 2008

They are not going to intervene? If they believe that fundamental rights are at risk (which they are...outside of the very few underage girls that need to be monitored and investigated) why are they sitting back and blowing hot air? Sounds like they are responding to public pressure, not out of conviction or they would be slapping lawsuits all over the place. Rights have been violated already for most of the families..damage done..what does the ACLU expect is going to happen? Texas apologize, reverse the decision, and resort this out... I don't think so.. What are they waiting for? Their response seems a little weird to me if fundamental consitutional rights were violated...

Mom of Six | 12:32 p.m. May 7, 2008

I am totally against abuse of children and I hope that those who have committed crimes will be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But every American should be concerned when they see such blatant civil rights voilations as I have seen in Texas. Yes, they need to protect those kids. But they need to work within the LAW and should not be allowed to take someone's children just because they "might" be in danger. Shouldn't they have to have evidence for each individual case?

VF | 12:32 p.m. May 7, 2008

The ACLU will never be happy until they have gotten rid of our existing laws and all people are allowed to participate in anything they decide to regardless of who they are offending and how gruesom the activity may be. When any group, religious or otherwise, decides that they can demand that young girls marry crazy old men at any age regardless of the existing laws, that religion/group should cease to exist. And the first idiot who writes in and decides to compare the FLDS with the LDS church we will know who the idiots really are.

Anonymous | 12:35 p.m. May 7, 2008

This I did not expect. I thought the ACLU only defended people who would give them more power.

ACLU Fence Sitting | 12:39 p.m. May 7, 2008

The ACLU, in a round about way, has endorsed the decision by CPS to wait until all of the evidence is in before deciding how to procede.

The ACLU would look extremely foolish if they were side completely with the FLDS and then Texas produced evidence that proved that the FLDS were, in fact, systematically practicing child rape.

getreal | 12:41 p.m. May 7, 2008

You all must have some insight that the rest of us do not have. You are assuming that all CPS/LE has is what the news tells us. Why don't you save your opinions until you actually know what you are talking about. Do you really think the only concern is a few pregnant girls? Please do a little research before you comment. Also, do not comment on Texas civil law unless you know it. Read Texas Family Code. Texas did work within the law.

Thanks | 12:58 p.m. May 7, 2008

Loud applause!!! Better late then never. Lets focus on kids and rights.

hmmm | 12:58 p.m. May 7, 2008

they still sound like they can't decide which side to stand on. They know very well that rights have been violated. But they don't wanna the angry gramma of the CPS and Baabaabra to say "sic 'em"

Very Surprised | 1:00 p.m. May 7, 2008

That the ACLU is stepping in. They are such a scum organization but I suppose they had no choice because this case is such a flagrant violation of civil rights. I hope that some of the Texas zealots wind up in jail and the lawsuits will empty the treasury of Texas.

kbp | 1:02 p.m. May 7, 2008

Getreal,

First, Tx. Family Code will not apply if criminal charges are brought forth.

Next, please direct all to where the "en masse" 14 day hearing, with children not represented by counsel and parents not notified, is how those Family Codes are supposed to work.

Last, you are correct in pointing out that we do not have all the CPS/LE have. The best that would help is a copy of the Temporary Custody Order to determine what Walthers based that Order on and what the exact next step is.

We do have enough to speculate rights that were violated. For just one example, maybe you could tell us what the CPS/LE might have that was presented to Walthers that would justify her Order to save a 5 YO boy with Down's syndrome from "imminent abuse"?

kbp | 1:06 p.m. May 7, 2008

One More Time,

Voss stated in her testimony that the religious beliefs were the reason not to return any of the children.

Red | 1:07 p.m. May 7, 2008

One MORE TIME: "Never once has anyone except morons referred to this action by Texas as religious based, ..."

CPS investigator Angie Voss testified that the only way she could agree to returning the children would be if the adults renounce their religion.

Who's the moron now?

Sandy & Family | 1:13 p.m. May 7, 2008

I agree with the ACLU completely. There is such a thing as due process in the system even law enforcement agencies. This could happen to any town, church, or community even your own. If this is allowed the states actions and handling of these allegations that are still unproven will be repeated. Teenage pregnancy,look at the national statistics,a lot of people should lose their kids. Broken bones,look at all the things that kids do because they think they are invincible,this doesn't prove abusive parents. All in all there is no case but people getting their rights stomped into the ground. These girls raise their babies,in society the girls can just murder their babies,whose worse?

Bruce | 1:18 p.m. May 7, 2008

I agree with the ACLU on very little...until now. It's probably too little, too late, or not enough but at least they are getting off the sidelines.
This case has taken on a life of it's own. It has become a real wake up to see how authoritarian our government has become.
The results will be the same as the Short Creek fiasco.
Those that suffer will be the parents and children.
Those that prove to themselves that they have ultimate power and can disregard the constituiton and human rights will be even more powerful.
Those that ultimately pay will be us all.

WA | 1:19 p.m. May 7, 2008

The issue is child abuse. From what I read (which can be easily incorrect or exaggerated) sex abuse is suspected. Not even religious freedom excuses it.

If I were concerned about my children seized wrongly, I'd be willing to make sure the agency had all the pertinent information, names, birthdates, parents/caregivers identities. If my young daughter was pregnant, I'd give all the infomation I had regarding paternity and child support.

How can CPS determine ages of pregnant girls without birth certificates? I'm sure some of the kids haven't been abused and/or of age--but which ones? If an organization wants to abolish laws, they should work to do so. There may be other countries where their practices are lawful.

This issue cannot be solved emotionally. It's time for some rational thinking about this emotionally wrenching time. The ACLU can work on this issue and help sort out facts.

Thanks for reading this.

We're over here! | 1:20 p.m. May 7, 2008

The ACLU statement is lawyerese for "we're sitting around with our fingers up our nose and not a clue, just in case you were wondering"

Not that anyone was.

Sokol | 1:28 p.m. May 7, 2008

Thank goodness. These guys know all the tricks.
THE ACLU will become giants in my eyes. They
would be doing the honorable, respectful and just
think, if they fight for these people. If they
could win an agressive parents rights case in federal
court. The outcome could be helpful to every father,
mother and child in the United States.
I HOPE THE ACLU KICKS THEIR COLLECTIVE CORRUPT
REARS.

Blind EYE | 1:32 p.m. May 7, 2008

One more time,

You would fit well with the book burners.

Hey why don't we burn the law books first as they are
just firewood in this case. The innocent children
who were stolen from there parents are the true victims. Foster home's in Texas are alot worse than
any of the do gooders realize.

Please if a crime was committed please charge some one. Unitl then give the kids back.

All of you supposed people who are crying about the
abuse better look around at your own families.

Sokol | 1:32 p.m. May 7, 2008

Why have I been banished? I followed your rules
Deseret News...what gives?

m | 1:35 p.m. May 7, 2008

Interesting the ACLU has so many "concerns" but they are not putting money where their mouth is.

Anonymous | 1:42 p.m. May 7, 2008

KBP:
Texas Family Code applies to the removal and placement of the YFZ children. The criminal case is completely separate. There is both a civil (CPS) and a criminal (LE) case. CPS only has the follow the civil code, which is found in the Texas Family Code. As far as the 14 day hearing goes.. that is a hearing to determine if CPS had cause to remove. The judge found that they did. Individual hearings are being scheduled. As far as the child with DS, i have no idea. I don't know his mother and I don't know if he was one of the 40+ children with broken bones or if he was one of the boys who made an out cry of sexual abuse. Why don't you just assume that FLDS is right and CPS is wrong?

wrz | 2:03 p.m. May 7, 2008

>> The ACLU said... parents have a constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion and to raise their children in their faith, as well as a fundamental right to due process of the law.

"Children may not be separated from their parents based solely on the state's disagreement with a group's thoughts or beliefs, religious or otherwise," the ACLU said.

The civil rights group said it is concerned about Texas authorities' justification for placing 464 children in foster care, by saying that all children at the ranch were at risk because they were exposed to FLDS beliefs on underage marriage.

"Religion is never an excuse for abuse," the ACLU said. "But, exposure to a religion's beliefs, however unorthodox, is not itself abuse and may not constitutionally be labeled abuse."<<

Good for the ACLU. They finally have something worthwhile to say.

wrz | 2:12 p.m. May 7, 2008

>>As my grandmother use to say "some of you people are so stupid you do not know sickum".<<

If your grandfather knew sickum (sic) he may have been a dawg.

G | 2:12 p.m. May 7, 2008

" "Religion is never an excuse for abuse," the ACLU said. "But, exposure to a religion's beliefs, however unorthodox, is not itself abuse and may not constitutionally be labeled abuse.""

It took them that long to state the obvious?

CA | 2:12 p.m. May 7, 2008

The ACLU is a bunch of godless commies... unless they are on your side!

St. George | 2:15 p.m. May 7, 2008

Bravo to the ACLU

re: kpb | 2:17 p.m. May 7, 2008

"Voss stated in her testimony that the religious beliefs were the reason not to return any of the children."

That's not what Voss said and she was only one witness. The judge looked at ALL of the evidence and made the decision to have all of the children removed until the investigation of child abuse was complete.

Sokol | 2:21 p.m. May 7, 2008

Thanks for allowing me to rant, I am glad that ACLU is agreeing that even children and parents of a
religion most Texans do not agree with, have a constitutional right to raise their children.
If I were a Texan, I would not point any incestual
fingers at these people for fear that the long arm
of hypocrisy might catch up with them.

Georgio | 2:38 p.m. May 7, 2008

There is a 17 year old teen visiting from Canada with good enough documentation to enter the country, why now under state custody? why they need DNA, isn't the passport enough? what are the real goals here?
Excluding the stooges, there can only be two kinds of people in this world . those who know that these women & children are Innocent because they were not proven guilty in a court of law, and the ones who may know that they are guilty because they raped them themselves.

Too "One MORE TIME | 12:57 " | 2:37 p.m. May 7, 2008

To YOU this my have nothing to do with religion, but you don't speak for EVERYONE (no matter how big you type).

I agree it's not ALL about religion, but you can't say their religion has nothing to do with the situation or your head is in the sand.

I'm all about rule of law (not rule of rumor). If Texas can PROVE their cases I support them. So far they've just leaked little tidbits of information to be floated by the media to start inuendos and to get the public to believe they have proof that will stand up in court.

I say, If they've got solid evidence start charging people and proving it and quit putting the evidence out in the media to start inuendos to sustain public support for the drastic action they took.

Anonymous | 2:57 p.m. May 7, 2008

Yes, the issue is child abuse. But isn't seperating children from their parents with no valid reason abusive too? I don't disagree with the idea behind the raid, just the process of carrying it out.

The point of the fundamental rights isn't that they can be withheld when a subculture is contrary to the beliefs of our society. They are unalienable. Even if you practice polygamy.

dingo | 2:58 p.m. May 7, 2008

so now we see that the ACLU is for rape, incest, imprisonment, and abuse.

what a shock from the group that has mutilated parents rights on subjects such as abortion, parental notfication, contraception, criminals having more rights than victims and the list goes on and on.

so cudos to the ACLU i thought you would never defend rape, incest, imprisonment, and abuse.

congratulations on your values and morals...oh wait we cant have those either or the ACLU will sue.

YOUgoACLU | 3:17 p.m. May 7, 2008

Who will be next? Hopefully the ACLU will act on their statements and get involved. The FLDS raid was disgraceful, a violation of personal and civil rights. It is a BIG FAUX PAS.

THANK GOODNESS! Finally!
Why did it take so long to express an intelligent opinion!!!

I strongly disagree with many positions of the ACLU and the FLDS! Individuals hurt by the system!

CA | 3:25 p.m. May 7, 2008

You don't see child abuse as a valid reason to remove children from the abusers?

BH | 3:29 p.m. May 7, 2008

Well, I know this sure helps me sort things out. After all the ACLU is always so well balanced in thier stand on issues.

Oh, wait! I couldn't even say that with a straight face. Well, it was good for a laugh for me.

Arizona | 3:47 p.m. May 7, 2008

Finally, Finally, Finally...I wonder what it took to the ACLU to move. Hopefully they follow through and act consistently with their stated views.

read between the lines | 3:48 p.m. May 7, 2008

You people who are applauding the ACLU on this are not getting it. The ACLU is NOT filing lawsuits. Their carefully worded statement walks both sides of the line here. They're watching the situation...not taking action. What's to cheer about?

SML-PDX | 3:56 p.m. May 7, 2008

So when is the ACLU going to come out in support of polygomy? There is no logical difference between gay marriage and polygamist marriage. I know . . . I know . . . some of these are children. First, I'm talking about consenting adults. Second, gays can be children too.

Thomas | 4:02 p.m. May 7, 2008

One thing I thought was pathetic about the Texas authorities: The scramble to gin up evidence of abuse after the initial telephone call turned out to likely be a fraud. Specifically, the dramatic statement that 40 out of 400+ kids had broken bones in the past.

Good grief. That's a 10% bone-breakage rate. We were three kids growing up in my family. I myself broke bones three times (five, if you count a broken nose -- thank you, Scott Grover and your racquetball racquet -- and a little avulsion fracture of my little toe (never kick a rock)). My sister also broke something. That's a 66% childhood bone-breakage rate in my family. Add in my extended family to increase the sample size, and we're still well over 50%. I suspect any reasonably active group of kids show a similar pattern.

I'm starting to wonder whether polygamy might actually be *safer* for kids -- maybe with more moms around to keep an eye on them, they break bones less.

Anonymous | 4:14 p.m. May 7, 2008

Where was the ACLU when the children needed to be protected?????? Nowhere to be found!!!!!!!!!

Chance | 4:28 p.m. May 7, 2008

Trust me when I say; the ACLU does not get invloved on principle, only when they can make money. No other reason. Their income is based solely on winning cases for groups and individuals. They do not help anyone but themselves. They are no dofferent than any other law firm. it is a business for them.

Chad | 4:30 p.m. May 7, 2008

Where is Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson?

PEOPLE NOT ANAMALS | 4:37 p.m. May 7, 2008

The ACLU comment "such actions should not be indiscriminately targeted against a group as a whole" is SPOT ON.

They need to round up all those that are breaking the law BUT, they need to identify those who are breaking the law BEFORE they are rounded up. You just don't go in and round up a entire community.

I don't believe that this is going on in the U S of A

RAID CPS | 4:42 p.m. May 7, 2008

Did we not read that there is a 70 percent chance that children in the CPS custody will be harmed? I'd consider this justification to raid CPS.

duagne | 4:46 p.m. May 7, 2008

I think it's funny that a lot of people are accusing the ACLU of just "blowing hot air" or not "putting their money where their mouth is." What are they supposed to do? Hire a crack team of commandos to take these kids back by force?

The ACLU has already sent lawyers to speak at many of the hearings concerning these FLDS kids, and is promising to continue to do so. That is all that anybody can do at this point.

The puropse of the ACLU | 4:55 p.m. May 7, 2008

The entire purpose and reason for existence for the ACLU is to stand behind every American who holds the firm and sometimes selfish belief that it's a free country and I can do what I want. A rule that the ACLU often throws aside is the Golden Rule.

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.