Comments on: Both sides now

By: Jean Woodman

Jean Woodman — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:19:53 +0000

I thoroughly agree. What bugs me is these women are also being treated not only as victims but also criminals. I think the state has the right to protect the children from forced marriages. And the women’s rights to make their own decisions as in society at large should be enforced. But they shouldn’t be forced to lose their children.

By: Blog Antatonist

Blog Antatonist — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:50:39 +0000

I agree to an extent. We can’t allow civil authorities to dictate what religious beliefs and lifestyles are acceptable, or we’d all likely wind up in jail.

But I saw an interview with one of the women who escaped three years ago, and the things she said were chilling. There is no doubt that what she and her eight children experienced was abuse.

I’m torn on the whole issue, and like you, I feared it would end badly. I’m just glad there were no lives lost.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:13:20 +0000

To your comment of why the mothers might lose their children, I imagine child endangerment laws “justify” the mothers losing the children. By allowing their children to be subjected to these rapes, they have shown an inability to adequately protect children. That’s the government argument, anyway.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:07:36 +0000

Julie forwarded me this post to read. I find your perspective interesting. I do think multiple rape convictions of the founder, along with various other stories coming out of the group, would constitute what you refer to as “imminent danger”. That’s just my take on the group. I’m certainly not big on the government’s involvement in religious practices, definitely, but I can understand their move to protect these children. I’m not sure that the government, though, will do much good in their effort, as you suggest, because what they have done simply makes momentary headlines, but these families will deal with the blowback for years - if not decades - to come. In the end, it probably all comes down to deciding where the government has a right to determine where safety overrides religious belief, and that is a dangerous subject.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:46:14 +0000

Honestly, I completely agree. I thought to myself — how are they going to find enough foster families for all of these kids? And also — the mothers of the children are victims themselves in some ways, so why should they lose their kids?

By: Julie Pippert

Julie Pippert — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:13:22 +0000

ME TOO!!! Thanks for writing about this. I have had it spinning around in my head (we’re inundated with the story here as you can imagine) and no time to process via blog.

Part of me agrees completely with your ending conclusion. And logically I think that’s probably right.

But part of me thinks it has to do with the broad definition of danger. Those women by my thinking were all in danger. This is emotional “thinking.”

What a rub.