More than 50%? Did you go to Utah public schools with this kind of misinterpretation of what you read?

I am not FLDS and think they are fools. But, they have a constitutional right to their religious beliefs and practices. They are being persecuted and their kids taken from them for one reason only: their religious beliefs and practices.

The children under 12 years are not pregnant. The boys are not pregnant.

The State and neighbors don't like the religion these people practice and have conjured up this modern day version of the lynch mob. Next they will accuse them all of being 'commies'.

50% are or were pregnant? Playing a little fast and loose with the facts, are you not? The actual statistics, even if proffered by the CPS of Texas, don't come close to that level. No one is saying that children should not be protected, but we are saying that the protective amendments of the US Constitution should not be suspended in favor of a witch hunt mentality.

Is EVERYONE who feels the Judge and the Texas raiders could have done their job without all the Gestapo tactics and disregarding the constitutional protections guaranteed ALL Americans (including wierd religious groups) get labeled an "FLDS Sympathiser/Defender"?

They could have done this a better way (without violating the constitutional rights of this group).

How do you think this raid is going to make the situation better long term?

Do you think this raid is going to make the FLDS community MORE open? I don't. I think the just go more underground now.

Do you think they're just going to suddenly stop having children? No, they will have to hide their future children from the government (the government has already said and demonstrated that they intend to take any future children born to these people).

If Texas authorities thought someone was being abused... They could have gone in with councelors instead of SWAT teams and counceled the kids and parents together and tried to bring them into the mainstream instead of tearing them appart and making them need to hide even more.

If you're so truly concerned about the welfare of these children, then you should support removal of the MEN who are perpetrating this lifestyle and impregnating young girls, not the removal of the victims. They should be free to come and go as they please and live in their own houses while the men are confined. Right now it's the other way around.

In run-of-the-mill domestic abuse cases it is the abuser who is removed from the home, not the abused. This case should be no different.

I thought the story last week said that 31 out of 53 young women under the age of 18 either are or have been pregnant. According to my non-Utah educated brain, that's well over 50%.

I hope the "constitution defender" is equally adamant about definding Wayne Bent, the self-proclaimed Messiah of the Lord Our Righteousness Church. He was arrested this week on charges of improper sexual conduct with a minor.

Maybe these constitution defenders are right! First they came for the FLDS. Next they went after Lord Our Righeousness. Next it could be the Methodists!

While I am a strong defender of religious freedom, there must be balance between religious freedom and laws of the land. Religious freedom must be tempered with protection of the innocent.

Would we allow murder or rape or armed robbery in the name of religious freedom? No civilized society would. Such actions would trample on the rights of the innocent. Then why would anyone condone statutory rape in the name of religious freedom?

To Roscoe:
You highlight with your comment part of the problem of playing loose with the facts. You defined the ages of the young women as simply under the age of 18. The original comment did not. Simply being under the age of 18 does not say they were pregnant or had been pregnant under legal age. That 31 of 53 fit that category does add up to more than 50%. To then use that % as an indicator that the pregnancies were illegal pollutes the data. If only 5 of 53 were actually under legal age and pregnant, the % drops to 9%. It is way to easy to mislead and even lie with statistics. Generalizations in this case have led to horrible abuses of personal rights and have allowed much damage to be done wherein the cure may actually kill the patient, the children.

BH, I'm one of those critical of the approach Texas decided to take (go in with a warrant based on known bogus info, go in with tanks and guns instead of CPS councelors, take all children into state custody, refuse to hear the FLDS family's lawyers or any of their legal petitions.

I'm not saying the illegal practices should be allowed to continue. That's something the FLDS-haters automatically interject that I'M NOT SAYING.

I'm just saying there are better ways to do this than guns, force, government strong arm tactics, ignoring their right to redress their greivences, etc.

Texas's approach is just as bogus as George Bush's approach to Iraq.
-Go in on false pretenses (WMD in Iraq... Bogus call in YFZ).
-Over react (shock&Awe in Iraq... Tanks and guns to check the condition of a caller who didn't exist).
- Weave in religion (make it an America/christian vs Iraq Muslim... Make it Evangelical vs FLDS).
- Make it "Your with us or your with them".

There are many more parallels but I'm out of words.

Again... I'm not saying let them keep breaking the law, but how does this raid fix that problem long term?

Okay ediddy, or duddy or whatever?, You may want to fudge on the numbers and say that between the ages of 15 to 18 are legal to have sex with, but I for one do not defend the acts of rapists and molesters. And for those that dare call this Religious beliefs, they are forsaken, with this rational, if I belong to a religion that believes in human sacrifice then I guess murder would be okay. Get a brain and read the facts, these men raped children, the women let it happen or facilitated it. These are the facts. This is not arguable.

The FLDS has taken something that was once a valid and necessary practice and turned it into something wrong. Polygamy was never about marrying extremely young girls, but was about building the religion, and providing for those who had lost husbands (there were no government social programs back then).
I find 2 things disturbing...first that fully grown men were marrying younger girls and second, that the state of Texas is doing harm "legally"...
Texas stated that many of these girls are pregnant or have given birth...they are also married. Does this not emancipate them? Change their status from "minor" to "adult"?
The legal age to marry in Texas (with consent) is something like 14 years old...
SO, shouldn't the state be worried about those girls NOT legally married ONLY?
Sad part is, the state might have gone after them for polygamy, but would have lost on constitutional grounds, so they are going in the "back door" to avoid the whole legal mess that would be caused by a constitutional challenge to the prohibition on polygamy.

Inspite of the name calling by Rudy Benoit with reference to my lack of mental capacity, I maintain that when talking about the application of law, the details make all the difference. I do not condone rapr, incest, child abuse in any way, but lumping all things into one basket is inaccurate! If the law says that a girl can marry at age 14, as the law was 2 1/2 years ago in Texas, then she could be pregnant and deliver by age 15, again at 16 and there would have been no law broken. She would fit in the parameter described in the original posting here, but would not be in the 50% category. I favor prosecuting those who are guilty, but casting a generalized net only inflames emotion and does not promote justice. It has nothing to do with religion or human sacrifice or "whatever." It has to do with the law and honesty.

Only when you are God can you declare anything inarguable. Until then, anything you contribute here is questionable.

In America, we believe in following the Law. The Law protects us from each other and especially from the Government. When the Government disregards Law and violates the basic rights of the people, it is at fault. It does not matter how serious the crime or even how adamant the public is about curtailing the rights of a segment of the population; the Government must abide by the Law.

When the Government listens to lawless people and circumvents the Law to pacify an angry mod, then that Government is lawless.

When laws are broken, there is a proper method that must be followed to bring the culprits to justice. Kidnapping innocent children is not part of that process.

When one Right is curtailed by the Government, all Rights are at risk.

Let's stop the mob mentality. Let's stop urging the Government to do anything it wants to do, as long as they do it against people we hate. Let's grow up America, and start living like Americans who respect the Law and understand Constitutional Rights.

In the words put into Thomas More's mouth in "A Man For All Seasons," I would give the devil the benefit of law -- for my own safety's sake. Ditto the FLDS pervs. An unfortunate side effect of loving liberty is that defending it often means you wind up defending really nasty people -- because those are the obvious first targets of the government's inevitable assaults on freedom.

I don't like drug dealers, either, but that doesn't stop me from arguing that government anti-drug efforts often cross the line that a free people should never tolerate their government to cross.

Rudy Benoit, "You may want to fudge on the numbers and say that between the ages of 15 to 18 are legal to have sex with, but I for one do not defend the acts of rapists and molesters."

The age of the pregnant women has bearing on if it was statutory rape, and so does the fact that some of them were married to young men (according to one article I read). Even if we accept that 50% of the girls under 18 were pregnant (I have no idea if this number includes the 2 year olds who can't get pregnant) some of them were monogamous with young boys.

You then have the idiocy to say, "Get a brain and read the facts, these men raped children, the women let it happen or facilitated it. These are the facts. This is not arguable."

Not all of them raped children and not all women allowed it to happen. Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty or are you the kind of person who serves on juries that send innocent people to death. We have seen the product of your kind who are exonerated by DNA.

Those that defend child abuse in the name of religion or the First and Fourth Amendments would defend the parents who gave their children the Kool-Aid at the Peoples Temple compound of Jim Jones. I have lived among polygamists and my family tree is full of them. I bare them no ill will, but I have no sympathy for child sexual abusers. Let's let the Texas courts and legal system work through this, and see where the rotten apples fall. Utah doesn't have the courage to do this in the face of so many child sexual abuse sympathizers if done in the name of religion. I don't believe the FLDS are comparable to 19th Century polygamist, and so I want the Texas courts to find out.

Many children have died and gone missing in the care of Texas CPS. That is something those who are in favor of allowing Texas CPS to confiscate kids before abuse is proven ought to consider.