Women abused in the name of religion

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:11 am

Forced to wear antiquated garments to hide the shame of their bodies from God

Forced at age 13 to marry much older men in arranged marriages.

\"Investigators determined that there is a widespread pattern and practice among the residents of the YFZ ranch in which young minor female residents are conditioned to expect and accept sexual activity with adult men at the ranch on being spiritually married to them,\" it said.
Such marriages take place \"once a minor female child is determined by the leaders of the YFZ ranch to have reached child-bearing age, approximately 13 to 14 years.\"

Forced to accept being one of multiple wives.

Beaten, locked in closets, deprived of food for disobeying men.

In a separate document, investigators say children at the ranch were deprived of nutrition as punishment and forced to sit in closets.

Kept from open society and indoctrinated into the religion of their keepers.

The girl said that she had been told that outsiders would hurt her, force her to cut her hair and wear makeup and have sex with lots of men.

All in America by a sect of the Christian religion.
http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_8859786
Where is the outrage? Where are the condemnations of this sect? Where is Thunderbunny's troll link stirring up the masses.
Where is Bee's venom laced list of things she hates about Fundamentalist Mormons? Pretty quiet out there. Is it because it is taking place in \"The Land of The Free\"? Is it because they believe that Jesus Christ is their Saviour?

Just thought I would troll for a few nibbles.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:54 am

Actually, my Bible Study group last night was talking about it.

Pretty messed-up stuff, and yeah, I was surprised that I hadn't heard much of anything about it. I wonder if you're right that there's some hesitation in the media to denounce a religion so \"close-to-home\", or whether I just didn't happen to catch the news that day.

(P.S. It's debateable whether Mormons can be considered a branch of Christianity, but that should be discussed elsewhere.)

Anyway, whether it's in the name of Allah, or Jesus, or Buddha, or whoever... it's horrifically wrong, and you're very correct that we ought to be outraged.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:47 am

Ford Prefect wrote:Where is the outrage? Where are the condemnations of this sect? Where is Thunderbunny's troll link stirring up the masses.
Where is Bee's venom laced list of things she hates about Fundamentalist Mormons? Pretty quiet out there. Is it because it is taking place in "The Land of The Free"? Is it because they believe that Jesus Christ is their Saviour?

That was the point I was trying to make (or maybe the thought process I was trying to start) here.

I chaulk it up to good old fashioned zenophobia, though I could be wrong.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:17 pm

BTW It's not just girls that get abused by the FLDS. Did you ever wonder why there are so many young girls available for these old farts to \"marry\"?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/ju ... lianborger

Up to 1,000 teenage boys have been separated from their parents and thrown out of their communities by a polygamous sect to make more young women available for older men, Utah officials claim.

Many of these \"Lost Boys\", some as young as 13, have simply been dumped on the side of the road in Arizona and Utah, by the leaders of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS), and told they will never see their families again or go to heaven.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:36 pm

Ford Prefect wrote: Where is Bee's venom laced list of things she hates about Fundamentalist Mormons? Pretty quiet out there. Is it because it is taking place in "The Land of The Free"? Is it because they believe that Jesus Christ is their Saviour?

No. I have no Saviour.

I've been reading about this cult in the news every day but I can only handle so much bad news. However, since people are being murdered daily in the name of Islam, I place it at the very top of my list of vile and hateful things. Mormon fundamentalists, and similar cults, are on my other list along with pedophile priests, and child molestors, but if you care to start a new thread, I'll be there. As a side note, I've always found it peculiar that some offshoots of major religions always include having sex with little kids and virgins.

Bee

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:31 pm

Ok I think everybody has caught TBitis.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:23 pm

Actually, I think this case proves both points. Obviously, as most of us have been saying all along, Christians have their own radicals and their own problems, same as any other religion.

BUT, note the important difference here; while our nation is NOT officially Christian, it's certainly true that this nation is majority Christian. And who was outraged and stopped the abuse? We did.

In the Islamic community, the all too common \"Honor Killings\" are regularly covered up and almost NEVER prosecuted by law.

Not all Muslims are bad. EVERY religion has it's radicals and its nut cases. But Islam will not be a civilized religion until they start policing their own criminals.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:38 pm

Oh, they prosecute their own criminals…the problem is who they consider to be criminals.

They have no problems chopping off the hand of a thief, but a terrorist…

But I get your point.

TechPro · Post by **TechPro** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:48 pm

I would be VERY remiss if I didn't bother to point out something ...

They call themselves \"Fundamentalist\" Mormons... but the truth is that they are so far from the fundamentals that just about the only similarities remaining are in their choice of names for their so-called \"religion\".

Please don't refer to them as \"Mormons\". You may not like or care for the real Mormons, but comparing or grouping the FLDS group with the LDS people is VERY insulting and distasteful.

Please always refer to the FLDS people as \"FLDS\", not as \"Mormons\". Mormons they are not and have not been for a very, very, long time.

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:58 pm

TechPro wrote:I would be VERY remiss if I didn't bother to point out something ...

They call themselves "Fundamentalist" Mormons... but the truth is that they are so far from the fundamentals that just about the only similarities remaining are in their choice of names for their so-called "religion".

Please don't refer to them as "Mormons". You may not like or care for the real Mormons, but comparing or grouping the FLDS group with the LDS people is VERY insulting and distasteful.

Please always refer to the FLDS people as "FLDS", not as "Mormons". Mormons they are not and have not been for a very, very, long time.

My understanding is that the modern mormon church changed their values in accordance with an evolving society, whereas the fundamentalists just stuck with original teachings. Is that incorrect?

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:58 pm

Mormon fundamentalists, and similar cults, are on my other list along with pedophile priests, and child molestors, but if you care to start a new thread, I'll be there.

No need to start a new thread. It is the paedophile, child molesting, church leaders and members of the FDLS we are discussing right here.
Plus the fact that a few thousand extremists out of a few million adherents to a North American religion is back page news but if it has anything to do with Islam the propaganda machine kicks into top gear and Faux News is all over it.
I have no use whatsoever for Islam. It is one of the lowest religions on my list but I hate propaganda.

And yes Techpro there is a vast difference between FLDS members and modern Mormons. Bigger than that between Amish and Mennonites. I've known a few Mormons and they are all so nice it's creepy. We have one working for us now, here for a year of training from our U.S. plant. He's a great kid with a wonderful young family. (Despite the sacred underwear and need to money order his tithe in every two weeks. Don't they take cheques in Utah?

)

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:00 am

Ford Prefect wrote:.... It is the paedophile, child molesting, church leaders and members of the FDLS we are discussing right here.
Plus the fact that a few thousand extremists out of a few million adherents to a North American religion is back page news but if it has anything to do with Islam the propaganda machine kicks into top gear and Faux News is all over it. ....

I guarantee if a few of those cult members go and murder three thousand everyday citizens in one day you will see the same scrutiny and 24/7 coverage you're talking about.
You haven't found hypocrisy so much as you found both sides of the publics threshold of outrage....

That and it's always easier for people to find hatred in their hearts for different race faster than they can hate their own, but that part of the equation is a human condition not exclusive to any one group. So again, no hypocrisy.

Short answer is:
A whacko is just a whacko right up until he commits mass murder then he's continuous-cable-news-ready.

Example, Timothy McVeigh, how long did cable news go on about the possible second person in the truck with him, and on and on about Militia Groups, his military record, a possible Iraqi secret police connection, etc. etc.??
McVeigh was just a lone whacko not part of any group/religion and he only killed about 150 people with no chance of more attacks coming but he became our daily dose of cable news fodder for quite a while.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:16 am

Cults are cults...whether they be 20 years old or 2000. Religion is nothing more than an entrenched cult- a means of providing a societal structure to their adherents as violent or as 'peaceful' as they see fit.

Often, cults are used to manipulate and consolidate power over others as this ugly example shows.

You bet I'm outraged. Warren Jeffs created his own little cult- just as muhammad did 1,398 years ago.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:56 am

Mormonism is clearly not support by the teachings of the Bible (rather it's defeated in a number of places), but by their own separate "scriptures." Pesky detail for the whole "Christianity is no better than Islam" argument, that.

Joseph Smith was a manipulative, womanizing, adulterous, superstitious lier.

Genghis wrote:My understanding is that the modern mormon church changed their values in accordance with an evolving society, whereas the fundamentalists just stuck with original teachings. Is that incorrect?

No, that's correct, but it's better than that. Their head guy receives convenient "revelations" to disarm troublesome issues. It's happened a number of times. One of his revelations elevated blacks to equality with whites. It's too bad their God is so nearsighted. Mormonism is a cult, though it has taken steps to tone some things down.

I have more reasons to oppose Mormonism that you do, Ford Perfect. Biblical Christianity have been against Mormonism long before the news told you they were a problem.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:55 am

The real troublesome aspect here is the police supposedly had a informant inside the church for four years and did nothing about it. Looking at pictures of the compound I have to wonder where the money came from to build the place. Would someone in the \"church\" have political connections that prevented a earlier raid? (see...I can conspiracy theorize with the best of them)

What it sounds like is this sect is nothing more than a front so older men can have a steady supply of pre-pubescent girls to play with. Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate religious \"freedom\" where sects do not allow freedom to their flock.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:20 am

Okay, guys. This thread is not about religion-bashing, or which groups belong to which religions or not. If you want to debate those topics, put up a separate thread.

This topic is about some very real, innocent, victims of a %^&*ed-up self-proclaimed religious group, and the reaction (or lack of reaction) on the public's part, not about which faith we can pin the blame.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:02 pm

What century is this? Modern thinking people can sit in a room and say “that’s not a real religion or they’re not real Christians”. That’s one of the oldest bigotries on the books.

JFTR:

Anybody or group that has a set of spiritual beliefs can be considered to have-be a religion.

Also, Anyone or group that believes Christ is the son of God, and or takes him as their personal savior can be considered Christians…even if “you” think everything else they believe is BS.

And try to remember, Christianity started as a “cult” (a small group of people following a person who didn’t particularly believe the same as the larger group). And there weren’t even any Protestants till Martin Luther nailed those 95 thesis to that there door.

And I guess you prolly dismiss my personal beliefs as not a true religion either.

No wonder people become Atheist.

P.S. Foil you have nerve sticking in your little Mormon insult, then dodging comment by “stating this is not the place” LOL

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:14 pm

Spidey wrote:P.S. Foil you have nerve sticking in your little Mormon insult, then dodging comment by “stating this is not the place” LOL

I've never intended to insult. If I have, I apologize deeply.

In both places, I was attempting to say that we can discuss the relationship and difference between the faiths. And in both places, I said that such a discussion is best put in a separate thread:

I, in response to what I knew was coming, wrote:(P.S. It's debateable whether Mormons can be considered a branch of Christianity, but that should be discussed elsewhere.)

I wrote:Okay, guys. This thread is not about religion-bashing, or which groups belong to which religions or not. If you want to debate those topics, put up a separate thread.

This kind of antagonism between faiths is what I was trying to avoid. It happens almost everytime the LDS or Jehovah's Witness churches are related to a topic. Heck, the teacher at a Bible Study my wife and I are attending had to calm down the rhetoric when this topic came up.

That's why I have tried to make it a point to keep this thread on topic (abuse in the name of religion). And if people want to discuss the other, it should be handled elsewhere.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:20 pm

Fine, but I always see this “start another thread” but no one ever does…so the retorts have to remain in the original thread.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:20 pm

The more I read about this the more it brought to mind the other thread where we talked about child endangerment laws. I can just imagine, when the police barged in, how some of you freedom fundamentalists on this board began crying \"totalitarianism\" for fear that this may be an assault on your civil liberties.

This is sick, and they new something was suspicious four years ago. Sorry for the OT.. Just ranting.

Bee

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:23 pm

Well Bee…I may be one of those you refer to, but…freedom has its limits.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:29 pm

Spidey wrote:I always see this “start another thread” but no one ever does…

Here you go.

Bet51987 wrote:Sorry for the OT.. Just ranting.

Not at all. Actually, I think that's very much on-topic.

Should law enforcement have jumped in at the first sign that something was wrong? Or were they right to wait? How far should religious freedom go?

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:44 pm

Spidey wrote:…freedom has its limits.

I can take that both ways. Do you mean "that's the price we pay to be free"? or do you mean, "They went beyond the boundaries of what is considered freedom".

Foil wrote:Should law enforcement have jumped in at the first sign that something was wrong? Or were they right to wait? How far should religious freedom go?

Why don't you just answer your own question.

Bettina

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:02 pm

The latter.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:05 pm

Bet51987 wrote:
Foil wrote:Should law enforcement have jumped in at the first sign that something was wrong? Or were they right to wait? How far should religious freedom go?
Why don't you just answer your own question.

Same reason I haven't jumped into the previous thread. I'm torn, between my desire to do everything we can to protect these innocent kids in current danger in their own homes, and the desire to protect children from the future dangers arising from a government with too much power to invade. I honestly don't have a good answer.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:02 pm

Foil wrote:
Bet51987 wrote:
Foil wrote:Should law enforcement have jumped in at the first sign that something was wrong? Or were they right to wait? How far should religious freedom go?
Why don't you just answer your own question.
Same reason I haven't jumped into the previous thread. I'm torn, between my desire to do everything we can to protect these innocent kids in current danger in their own homes, and the desire to protect children from the future dangers arising from a government with too much power to invade. I honestly don't have a good answer.

Then, with all due respect, you're nothing more than a contributor to the dangers and death that children face every single day. Your desire to do everything we can to protect these innocent kids in current danger is a joke when you've already chosen to look the other way like they did.

Bettina

EDIT: Thank's for the clarification Spidey.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:11 pm

Religious freedom is the right to worship as you please…not the right to behave as you please.

NP Bee

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:11 pm

Bet, you're misunderstanding me. Please don't read what you think I'm saying into it.

Another way to say this: I wish it could be both ways. I sincerely wish that law enforcement could both take the time to verify exactly what's going on and intervene the moment they hear about something. Unfortunately, it can't be both.

That's why I'm torn on this issue, because I want it both ways. I want innocent kids protected from psycho cults, and I also want them protected from abuse of power (like children taken away from loving homes by government agencies).

I did not say that I would have looked the other way, or supported the two years it took law enforcement to intervene. It would take a cold-hearted a$$hole to have \"chosen to look away\", and I hope that's not what you think of me.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:14 pm

Bet, the police had every right to step in. Underage girl being abused sexually calls by herself to report it. This was premeditated violation of rights.

This is in no way relevant to that other thread.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:57 pm

Testiculese wrote:Bet, the police had every right to step in. Underage girl being abused sexually calls by herself to report it. This was premeditated violation of rights.

This is in no way relevant to that other thread.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24014376/

ELDORADO, Texas - It was no secret that a polygamist sect that built a compound in the West Texas desert believed in marrying off underage girls to older men. And the sheriff had an informant for four years who was feeding him information about life inside the sect.

"We are aware that this group is capable of sexually abusing girls," Sheriff David Doran said. "But there again, this is the United States. We are going to respect them. We're not going to violate their civil rights until we get an outcry."

The trigger for the raid was a hushed phone call from a terrified 16-year-old girl.

I not only think this has everything to do with the other thread, but it is a perfect example. Something is very wrong here. Either the Sheriff was incompetant or the laws failed and I believe it was both. He should be fired and the state should be sued.

Personally I don't know what I can do except to write my congressman and my attorney general asking for more effective child endangerment laws and expanding the probable cause laws which I'm going to do. I'm going to talk with my friends tommorrow and get something going.

Bee

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:42 pm

Bet51987 wrote:I'm going to talk with my friends tommorrow and get something going.

That's awesome, Bet.

Let us here at the DBB know if we can help.

(Seriously. Even though I argue that law enforcement has to be sure of the scenario before they invade homes, cases like this one where they have the evidence should never be delayed. If there's something that could help those cases get expedited, I'd definitely support it.)

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:43 pm

I appreciate your concern, Bettina, but I believe that it's an impossibility to save the world through more stringent government. Myself, I would work to fight the religion itself rather than trying to tighten security. I think maybe you're letting your emotions get away with you, and you just don't understand the need for or the purpose of our kind of government.

That said, I wouldn't necessarily assume that something more couldn't have been done within the law.

To tell you the truth, I haven't totally made up my mind concerning child protection laws.

Don't get me wrong, I'm the kind of person who would've liked to go in there and deal with those men myself, in spite of myself.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:00 am

\"We are aware that this group is capable of sexually abusing girls,\" Sheriff David Doran said. \"But there again, this is the United States. We are going to respect them. We're not going to violate their civil rights until we get an outcry.\"

That is what I think is a dead wrong attitude. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that there is nothing bad going on is B.S. And hiding behind some kind of guarantee of \"rights\" is totally unacceptable. Does this clown figure everything is fine if you manage to indoctrinate and terrify your victims so that they won't complain? Is that what makes something legal?
Total crap. An abuse of the concept of \"Freedom\". Human nature is such that \"freedom\" like that will just lead to abuse. I am very much in favour of the \"Rule of Law\" over false \"freedom\".

Going back a bit I have to agree with Kilarin that is is an example of the relative civilization of the U.S. that the compound was eventually shut down.

We have an FLDS compound here in Canada as well called Bountiful. And even in a nation that is much more interventionist than the U.S. they have been allowed to operate for many years. And we still have not shut them down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bountiful, ... h_Columbia

On April 8, 2008 the B.C. government has been told it should ask the province's highest court for a legal opinion on polygamy instead of proceeding first with charges against members of a polygamist cult in the community of Bountiful.

Not something to be proud of.
This woman, a local newspaper columnist:
http://communities.canada.com/vancouver ... fault.aspx
Has been trying for years to get some action taken against the operators of Bountiful.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 12:44 pm

The sheriff's (willful) incompetence is a different subject, and doesn't bear any relevance to the other thread either. ? These two cases are completely separate.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:06 pm

Ford Prefect wrote:
"We are aware that this group is capable of sexually abusing girls," Sheriff David Doran said. "But there again, this is the United States. We are going to respect them. We're not going to violate their civil rights until we get an outcry."
That is what I think is a dead wrong attitude. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that there is nothing bad going on is B.S. And hiding behind some kind of guarantee of "rights" is totally unacceptable

But what do they mean that they "knew" it was going on. I can give you a long list of cases where the government "Knew" something was going on, and acted on it without good proof, and ended up horribly messing up peoples lives, sometimes killing them.

If they have sufficient evidence to legally act, by all means, they certainly should have! But the laws against unreasonable search and seizure were put there for a VERY good reason. Sometimes they let bad guys get away, but without them, our government BECOMES the bad guy.

Back to an example I used previously. We could reduce the cases of child abuse by allowing Child Protective Services to inspect all homes with children, several times a year, unannounced and without any limits on what they may search or investigate. But the results of giving the government this kind of power would be WORSE for children overall. By far.

Now before everyone gets up in arms, yes, I absolutely agree that our government does everything they can to foul up the unreasonable search and seizure laws ON BOTH SIDES. They flagrantly violate it at times, and at others they refuse to prosecute when any reasonable person would say they had good reason to do so.

I'm not defending the way the law implements civil rights, and I'm CERTAINLY not defending the way they were implemented in this case. But I WILL defend the concepts of innocent until proven guilty, safety from unreasonable search and seizure, and a police force with strictly limited powers. these concepts are VERY important. Even to children.

<edit>
<Here > is a PERFECT example of when the cops mess up when they HAD plenty of legal excuse to do something.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:16 pm

What part of

\"We are aware that this group is capable of sexually abusing girls,\"

don't you understand?
An example of a second incompetent law enforcement agency is not particularly relevant.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:55 pm

Foil wrote:
Bet51987 wrote:I'm going to talk with my friends tommorrow and get something going.
That's awesome, Bet. Let us here at the DBB know if we can help.

You can't help. You've shown me countless times.

Don't worry, I understand different opinions even if I hate them.

Anyway, the three masses this morning netted us 75 signatures. We hit the senior home next which will get us some more. They like us.

Bee

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 8:39 pm

Ford Prefect wrote:What part of
"We are aware that this group is capable of sexually abusing girls,"

don't you understand?
An example of a second incompetent law enforcement agency is not particularly relevant.

I suppose, on some level, we're all capable of sexually abusing girls. By the same token, we're all capable of any crime. The sheriff should, however, be keeping a closer eye on those who are deemed more likely to do so than the common Joe. You can't convict someone for being capable of committing a crime, but if someone walks into a convenience store holding a gun, you don't just ignore him as if he's just another one of the customers.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:06 pm

this is certainly worrying that child sexual abuse can go on, and the police can be powerless.

i believe there is juristiction that if a policeofficer believes there is someone being hurt, or their life is in danger, he can enter a premises.
ie: if he hears screaming.
i've heard about cases like this, where the cop hears screaming, and that's all the justification he needs to break in instantly without a warrant.
If he had reason to believe children were being sexually abused, surely that would be the same. He should be able to break in immediately.

But as we can see, the cops didn't seem to think so. So perhaps the cops were correct, that the law doesn't properly protect these children. And they had undercover ppl in there to try to find a legal way to get them.

i know it's an understatement... but this is certainly worrying

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:15 pm

Ford Prefect wrote:What part of
"We are aware that this group is capable of sexually abusing girls,"
don't you understand?

What I don't understand is HOW he was aware. A rumor from some disgruntled guy who simply wanted the religion out of the neighborhood? A report from an ex member who got kicked out of the organization? An eye-witness report from a reliable witness? Or a 911 call from a victim?

All of these entail different levels of responsibility and legal action. At the "unreliable rumor" level, the cops should probably increase surveillance and do further investigation, but they are unlikely to get a judge to grant a warrant for a raid, wiretap, or arrests. The report from the ex-member would probably not authorize immediate arrest warrants, but would (I hope) open the door for wiretaps and probably search warrants. And an eye-witness report from a reliable witness or a 911 call would probably allow the cops to raid the place at once.

What legal action the cops can take depends on how reliable the information they have is. If they jump the gun and overreact when the information was unconfirmed and unreliable, they will do far more damage than good. If they hesitate and don't take the proper action when they had enough information to do so, then they are guilty of criminal neglect.

In this story, we have direct calls from a girl in distress on the 29th. I don't understand why we had no action on this until the 30th, but perhaps it just took that long to get everything together and in place. Clearly once they had this good of evidence, the cops moved.

But as for the sheriff claiming that they were "aware that this group is capable of sexually abusing girls" before that point, I still want to know HOW he was aware. If they had good evidence and sat on it, then skin the police, judges, and prosecutors alive. But if they just didn't like or trust the religious nuts who lived down the street, then they had no right to act.

Women abused in the name of religion

Women abused in the name of religion

Re: Women abused in the name of religion

Re: Women abused in the name of religion

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: