The greatest civil rights movement ever, has yet to be acknowledged.

While the world argues over whether the FLDS people should be protected because they all belong to the same religion, or prosecuted because of it, the true prejudice of the situation goes highly unnoticed. If you take one word from the many comments on the situation, and replace it with a term used to identify a group, (Black, Jew, women, etc.), that has already paid the price of freedom, the prejudice becomes disturbingly clear. The word is not FLDS. The word is children.

"...there is a continuing danger to the physical health or safety of the child (black person) if the child (black person) is returned to the care of the parent (white person) or other person entitled to possession of the child (black person)..."
http://web.gosanangelo.com/pdf/affidavit.pdf

The CPS worker is asked about the decision to remove the girls and replies that her concern is a global pattern that underage marriage (marriage of black people) and children (black people) having children is permitted.
...
The investigation revealed teenage (black) pregnancies, the witness says. The mind-set is such, she says, that the young (black) girls believe it is the highest blessing they can have to have children.
...
Some girls who are reporting they are adults ( white) are likely not adults (white)...
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/apr/17/live-from-the-courthouse-updates-ON-FLDS-CUSTODY/

Girls age 14, 15 or 16 (who are black) are not emotionally mature enough to consent to marriage, the witness replies.
...
He adds that during childhood, the parts of the brain responsible for speech and language are forming, and if you read to the child, speak to the child and give the child lots of opportunity to hear language, the child will grow up with a healthy language capability.
A part of the brain, he says, is involved in forming healthy relationships, and if there's no bonding, that part of the child's brain does not develop.
...
The psychiatrist says that FLDS members who leave the group are "highly vulnerable" to people who would exploit them because of their upbringing.
It's because they're behind in their decision-making capabilities - they haven't matured, he says.
He testifies that he asked three of the "young (black) women" whether they would allow him to take their pulse, but told them that he didn't have to - it was up to them. They appeared to be flummoxed by having to make a choice, he says.
It's not easy to break the children's (black people's) thought patterns, the psychiatrist says. When you are socialized in a belief and behavior that's deeply ingrained as part of their religion, it's very hard to get a person to see that the belief and associated behavior are wrong, he says.
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/apr/18/live-from-the-courthouse-day-2-of-updates-from/

"My take on it all is that children (black people) are not the personal property of parents (white people)," Berliner said by e-mail. "As minors (black people),the state has an abiding interest in checking on their welfare and their education. When the state doesn't do that, it is abandoning its responsibility to take care of those we define as not able to make decisions on their own."
http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9012668

As the state argues with their parents over what is "in their best interest", the children, like their civil rights, have yet to be acknowledged.

Why publicize physical abuse?

Lately newspapers have been touting a supposed statement made by Carey Cockerell, the head of the state's Department of Family and Protective Service.
" his agency was investigating whether young boys were abused based on "discussions with the boys."
"Cockerell also said 41 FLDS children had evidence of broken bones, some of whom are "very young." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080430/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

When a child is taken into CPS custody, for whatever reason, it is not unusual to look for signs of other abuse. The reason the head of the department would make a public statement disclosing this information, was not stated. Carey Cockerell not only spouted numbers and allegations that meant absolutely nothing, but the subject (physical abuse) had absolutely nothing to do with the legal reasons given for taking the children from the ranch and the ruling to keep them in CPS custody.
The affidavit for removing the FLDS children from their homes, clearly states the reason for removal as being, "there is a pervasive pattern and practice of indoctrinating and grooming minor female children to accept spiritual marriages to adult male members of the YFZ Ranch resulting in them being sexually abused. Similarly, minor boys residing on the YFZ Ranch, after they become adults, are spiritually married to minor female children and engaged in sexual relationships with them resulting in them becoming sexually perpetrators. This pattern and practice places all of the children located at the YFZ Ranch, both male and female, to risks of emotional, physical and/or sexual abuse."
During the hearing, Judge Barbara Walther heroically stayed the course of impartiality, basing the ruling on the accusation, and only the accusation. At one point questions were being asked about physical abuse. "This is a 14-day hearing, the judge said. And questions should relate to its purpose." http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/apr/17/live-from-the-courthouse-updates-ON-FLDS-CUSTODY/
But perhaps that is the reason Barbara Walther is a judge and Carey Cockerell isn't.

Why is it so hard to fight predjudice?

Why is it so hard to fight prejudice?

Because those who are prejudice against something, truly believe that thing is wrong.

Those who are prejudice against interracial marriage, truly believe interracial marriage to be wrong.

Those who are prejudice against a gay lifestyle, truly believe a gay lifestyle to be wrong.

Those who are prejudice against eating meat, truly believe eating meat is wrong.

Those who are prejudice against communism, truly believe communism to be wrong.

Those who are prejudice against having children out of wedlock, truly believe having children out of wedlock to be wrong.

Those who are prejudice against truancy, truly believe truancy is wrong.

Those who are prejudice against polygamy, truly believe polygamy to be wrong.

Those who are prejudice against "underage" marriage, truly believe "underage" marriage to be wrong.

Those who are prejudice against child labor, truly believe child labor is wrong.

Those who are prejudice against unconditional obedience, truly believe unconditional obedience to be wrong.

Those who are prejudice against forcing others, truly believe that forcing others is wrong.

How can one fight prejudice simply because one truly believes being prejudice is wrong?

The horrors of freedom

The United States of America and it's occupants believe freedom to be very important. The mere title of the country is based on freedom. It is separate individual states who don't want to be controlled by other states beliefs, joining together to have a few laws in common and to help each other out. This is beautiful and an important part of the freedom of the country. The smaller the group making laws for themselves, the less likely their actions will be forced by other's beliefs. At this moment in history, this freedom has allowed a tragedy ironically targeted at freedom itself, to continue. A Texas judge has ruled, in a case so sweeping the exact number of people the ruling was made for was not known at the time of the ruling, that teaching a child to obey one's parents puts the child in "immanent danger" for abuse if what the parents believe is currently against the law. Now, people in the USA are Yankees, they are cowboys, they have lived and fought and died for freedom. Throughout the world, people look to the USA as a place they would love to go to finally be free. The people there are so caught up in the idea of freedom, they constantly complain and find the things that don't make their country free. The desire to have a revolution to "protect their rights", seems to be in their blood. In the end, like an itch you have to scratch, they will not be able to stand it, and the ruling will be overturned. The rebellious nature of those watching, itches to actually do something now, as along with freedom, the USA is also known for taking the longest time possible to decide anything. But the same belief in freedom, that seems to have been trampled upon in this case, is the force behind laws that say they must sit back and watch. Along with freedom, and taking a very long time to decide what a law says, and rebellion, the USA is rife with complicated mazes of laws that protect the rights by which freedom is there defined. In Texas these hoops were not all jumped through, but when it comes to "doing something about it", the US cannot ignore the individual freedoms of the states it's made up of, and commit a crime against freedom to enforce freedom. That is another USA ideal. You must not bypass freedom in the attempt to save it. So they are forced to stand by, respecting the rights of Texas, until all the hoops have been jumped through or ignored, up to the point where the rest of the United States can jump.