AR - Fully-Armed Sheriffs Remove 7 Homeschool Children from 'Prepper' Family

[K_Z]

On this very thread there are very hateful comments against fundamentalists, "fundies", all kinds of cute little names.
I don't know if they've abused their kids or not - but I know that on this thread, he's considered guilty because he's fundamentalist and takes his faith literally.
He's "backwards" therefore he's guilty.

He might not be persecuted for his faith - but he's definitely considered guilty for it.

I disagree. These provocative posts are becoming tiresome-- the goal of these posts is just to get a rise out of someone, IMO, not to further productive discussion about THIS case. And that's disappointing.

The abuse is separate from his religious beliefs, in the eyes of the law. Abuse is abuse, no matter the rationale. He can "believe" whatever he wants, but the EXPRESSION of those beliefs must be within the law.

It just so happens that this particular individual claims a divine mandate to abuse his kids. So that does make it about "religion" and "religious freedom". A lot of different "social" groups have a history of child abuse. Fundamentalists are only one of them. He isn't being persecuted because of his religious beliefs, or for being a "fundie". He's being "persecuted" for abusing his kids, and/ or creating an unsafe environment for them, BASED ON HIS PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS INTERPRETATION. That's against the law.

Belief is different than action. You can "believe in" honor killings or female genital mutilation; you cannot "do that" in this country, as an example only. I don't think he's trying to kill his kids. I take him at his word that he believes he needs to beat them to submission to save their souls from hell, and that he believes God is telling him he HAS to do this. That's much different than just randomly persecuting someone for their "beliefs."

 

[K_Z]

If I want to, I can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and claim membership in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But I can't claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me I have to beat my kids or they would go to hell. The court doesn't really care if I think Jesus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me to beat my kids. I can't beat my kids in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a legal excuse, KWIM?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

http://www.venganza.org/

 

[Charlie09]

I disagree. These provocative posts are becoming tiresome-- the goal of these posts is just to get a rise out of someone, IMO, not to further productive discussion about THIS case. And that's disappointing.

The abuse is separate from his religious beliefs, in the eyes of the law. Abuse is abuse, no matter the rationale. He can "believe" whatever he wants, but the EXPRESSION of those beliefs must be within the law.

It just so happens that this particular individual claims a divine mandate to abuse his kids. So that does make it about "religion" and "religious freedom". A lot of different "social" groups have a history of child abuse. Fundamentalists are only one of them. He isn't being persecuted because of his religious beliefs, or for being a "fundie". He's being "persecuted" for abusing his kids, and/ or creating an unsafe environment for them, BASED ON HIS PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS INTERPRETATION. That's against the law.

Belief is different than action. You can "believe in" honor killings or female genital mutilation; you cannot "do that" in this country, as an example only. I don't think he's trying to kill his kids. I take him at his word that he believes he needs to beat them to submission to save their souls from hell, and that he believes God is telling him he HAS to do this. That's much different than just randomly persecuting someone for their "beliefs."

No he doesn't -
That's the issue at hand for the judge to decide -
and if you're going to call out for provocative posts - then let the moderators know and let them deal with it -

 

[Charlie09]

If I want to, I can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and claim membership in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But I can't claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me I have to beat my kids or they would go to hell. The court doesn't really care if I think Jesus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me to beat my kids. I can't beat my kids in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a legal excuse, KWIM?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

http://www.venganza.org/

'

These provocative posts are becoming tiresome-- the goal of these posts is just to get a rise out of someone,

Hmmm...pot meet the kettle?

 

[IAMME]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Arkansas
86% christian.... His children were not taken from him because of his religious beliefs in a conspiracy to interfere with his religious rights as he would like the public to believe... It is ludicrous to believe that is the issue here, he was turned in to the child abuse hotline, they opened an investigation, the investigation found that the children were not safe in the home and they were removed until their safety could be assured... He believes that he is right to abuse and/or neglect his children based on his religious beliefs, the law does not allow a rationalization for abuse, religious or otherwise. Believe it or not arkansas DHS does not just snatch up kids EVERYTIME they come in a home... They have to have substantiated the claims of abuse or neglect, they have been in my home several times, they have investigated me more times than I can count (one of my exes favorite pastimes seems to be calling the hotline) and while it is annoying I have never had any fear of them coming to my house or questioning me or my children, I've NEVER worried over "what my kids were telling" because I KNEW the allegations were unfounded and I have never thought that it was a conspiracy by DHS to persecute me because of my beliefs... IMO HS's fear mongering are an insipid attempt to divert the attention away from whatever FACTS are being presented.... All IMO

Who knows something about the likelihood or reasons a judge might grant the parents request for a new GAL?

 

[flourish]

If I want to, I can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and claim membership in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But I can't claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me I have to beat my kids or they would go to hell. The court doesn't really care if I think Jesus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me to beat my kids. I can't beat my kids in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a legal excuse, KWIM?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

http://www.venganza.org/

May you be touched by his noodly appendage, R'amen.
(The believers are referred to as "pastafarians," btw).

 

[IAMME]

May you be touched by his noodly appendage, R'amen.
(The believers are referred to as "pastafarians," btw).

Arrrrrr! Right u are matey!

 

[gitana1]

I have been reading the supporting Facebook pages. I see a few posters encouraging the family to break the gag order and to speak out. Just curious, what would happen?

Possibly contempt. It could also result in harming their case because if they did they may be accused by CPS of harming the kids by publicizing things about their lives.

But it my guess is by and large it would be ignored if they broke the gag order.

 

[MyBelle]

My ex attempted to place an 11x13 portrait of our daughter on the plaintiffs table during a custody battle.... It PISSED the judge smooth off and he was ordered very firmly to remove it immediately.. I'm not sure if that was the same hearing that we discussed the GAL or not, he sued me (and lost) 9 times for custody before my daughter was 10 years old... I have a little experience with DHS investigations and court procedures as a result, not the exact same thing as this family I realize....

Not remotely the same thing.

JMO

 

[Charlie09]

Yes but the posters on this thread (to my knowledge) had nothing to do with taking these kids, nor will they have any input into the judges ultimate decision, therefore the PARENTS are the ones who drug their religion into e public arena and are attempting to garner support and sympathy using it, bc it is the "popular" thing these days to claim "persecution" in national main steam media... But what we are trying to point out is that in THIS case that claim is absolutely ridiculous, maybe in a more liberal state these claims could be valid but here it just is NOT considered backwards to be a fundentalist, or a homeschooler etc.... I know MANY MANY families that are just like this one and no one thinks they are "odd" or "backwards", around here the ability to live this lifestyle is something to be applauded and envied and aspired to... This is the state that gave you the Duggars, no one here would be talking about their religion if they hadn't started screaming it from the rooftops.... IMO

It's also the state that gave us the Clintons...let's not pretend it's a right wing state with only fundamentalist home schoolers in it -

 

[MyBelle]

I disagree. These provocative posts are becoming tiresome-- the goal of these posts is just to get a rise out of someone, IMO, not to further productive discussion about THIS case. And that's disappointing.

The abuse is separate from his religious beliefs, in the eyes of the law. Abuse is abuse, no matter the rationale. He can "believe" whatever he wants, but the EXPRESSION of those beliefs must be within the law.

It just so happens that this particular individual claims a divine mandate to abuse his kids. So that does make it about "religion" and "religious freedom". A lot of different "social" groups have a history of child abuse. Fundamentalists are only one of them. He isn't being persecuted because of his religious beliefs, or for being a "fundie". He's being "persecuted" for abusing his kids, and/ or creating an unsafe environment for them, BASED ON HIS PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS INTERPRETATION. That's against the law.

Belief is different than action. You can "believe in" honor killings or female genital mutilation; you cannot "do that" in this country, as an example only. I don't think he's trying to kill his kids. I take him at his word that he believes he needs to beat them to submission to save their souls from hell, and that he believes God is telling him he HAS to do this. That's much different than just randomly persecuting someone for their "beliefs."

If the allegations of physical abuse are not related to their religious beliefs, then why are you so fixated on their religious beliefs? Aren't your posts just as provocative as those you are indignantly calling out?

I don't believe this case has anything to do with the family's religious beliefs but if he is physically abusing his children as you claim, there needs to be proof beyond a neighbor's phone call.

JMO

 

[Donjeta]

Well I can't imagine that the kids were removed solely on the basis of a neighbourly phone call.

One easily available source of evidence is the children themselves. They have first hand experience and old enough to speak and either corroborate and elaborate on the neighbour's concern or say no, that's not how it is at all.

And well, usually if the parents rant and rave and rhapsodize about their right, (religious or otherwise), to beat their children, they normally do.

 

[K_Z]

Some brief remarks from Hal Stanley are up on the FB sites. The same predictable comments about not getting the kids back, and that he feels that they got "nothing" from the hearing, and everything was left as it was. Both his comment, and another post, referring to spiritual "warfare" and their "fight".

Surely his attorney told him that would be the outcome of a procedural hearing, so that rings pretty hollow to me. There was never any chance the kids would be returned yesterday, so those comments are pretty misleading to their supporters. Some of their supporters may not understand how the court process works.

 

[Margo/Mom]

In my county GALs are appointed based on rotation, all the local attorneys are placed on the list and are called upon when it's their turn, or that is how my attorney explained it to me during a custody battle..

In going through the news stories this AM, according to the Stanley's attorney, the children are being represented by *advertiser censored* as Attorney Ad Litem from (I forget where). He did not directly address the motion put before the court except to say that a motion was taken under advisement and attorneys asked to present case law.

What I gather from this is that the children currently have legal representation from an ad litem attorney (as opposed to a non-attorney CASA), and that the parents are requesting a change in that representation.

Begs the question of what the issue is that the parents have with the current representation (and the legal consideration of whether the parents get to have a role in selecting the "independent" representation of their children).

 

[Margo/Mom]

On this very thread there are very hateful comments against fundamentalists, "fundies", all kinds of cute little names.
I don't know if they've abused their kids or not - but I know that on this thread, he's considered guilty because he's fundamentalist and takes his faith literally.
He's "backwards" therefore he's guilty.

He might not be persecuted for his faith - but he's definitely considered guilty for it.

Perhaps you could be more specific.

 

[Margo/Mom]

If I want to, I can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and claim membership in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But I can't claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me I have to beat my kids or they would go to hell. The court doesn't really care if I think Jesus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me to beat my kids. I can't beat my kids in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a legal excuse, KWIM?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster



http://www.venganza.org/

I know a number of practicing Pastafarians.

 

[Margo/Mom]

No he doesn't -
That's the issue at hand for the judge to decide -
and if you're going to call out for provocative posts - then let the moderators know and let them deal with it -

Yes, that is the issue at hand for the judge to decide. Or rather how he acts on that belief. That he holds an authoritarian and patriarchal set of beliefs based on a legalistic interpretation of the Bible is hardly in dispute. Hal is repeatedly on the record in public in support of those beliefs, and further that those beliefs, under another set of beliefs that he holds that he refers to as "parents rights" (not Constitutionally guaranteed, nor blanketed by other legislation so far as I can tell, to the extent that he believes them to exist) requires him to "chasten" his children with a rod to demonstrate his love for them, and to remove from them demons of rebellion.

 

[Margo/Mom]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Arkansas
86% christian.... His children were not taken from him because of his religious beliefs in a conspiracy to interfere with his religious rights as he would like the public to believe... It is ludicrous to believe that is the issue here, he was turned in to the child abuse hotline, they opened an investigation, the investigation found that the children were not safe in the home and they were removed until their safety could be assured... He believes that he is right to abuse and/or neglect his children based on his religious beliefs, the law does not allow a rationalization for abuse, religious or otherwise. Believe it or not arkansas DHS does not just snatch up kids EVERYTIME they come in a home... They have to have substantiated the claims of abuse or neglect, they have been in my home several times, they have investigated me more times than I can count (one of my exes favorite pastimes seems to be calling the hotline) and while it is annoying I have never had any fear of them coming to my house or questioning me or my children, I've NEVER worried over "what my kids were telling" because I KNEW the allegations were unfounded and I have never thought that it was a conspiracy by DHS to persecute me because of my beliefs... IMO HS's fear mongering are an insipid attempt to divert the attention away from whatever FACTS are being presented.... All IMO

Who knows something about the likelihood or reasons a judge might grant the parents request for a new GAL?

I would simply add that the Stanleys are still engaged in due process, which includes their right to have their issues adjudicated in a court of law and to present evidence to counter whatever has been found by the authorities.

Yes, this is a time-consuming process, because this is not Law and Order. In this country we do not afford drive-thru justice. Further, if the court had scheduled all hearings immediately we would likely be hearing from the Stanleys and their supporters that they had not time to prepare.

 

[daisytrail]

Right we have CASA volunteers AND GALs... As far as my understanding goes GALs are attorneys and CASA volunteers can be anyone, (provided I'm sure they pass background checks) but they are always advertising for more volunteers to be CASA advocates, I'm not sure what kind of training they give...

I was a CASA. The training that I remember consisted of understanding the procedures of cases we might encounter, a bit of child development, cultural understanding of different was that people parent, the scope of what one was entitled to in terms of documentation and access to people close to the child (actually quite broad), how to write a report to the judge, and most important grounding in our understanding that the best interests of the children whose cases we were assigned to must come first. We actually wanted to know what the children felt and what the children wanted. Yes, background checks were required.

ETA: When I was a CASA (not in Arkansas) we did not become involved in custody disputes between parents unless the matter became a CPS case.

 

[daisytrail]

I find it rather interesting that their supporters (who outwardly appear to embrace strongly conservative ideals) are suggesting that they contact and court highly liberal media news outlets and liberal news personalities to get their story more press coverage. Any port in a storm??

Actually, I'm rather surprised that such staunch conservative supporters would even know who the "liberal" cable icons even are, lol! Apparently, the supporters DO watch (evil worldly) mainstream cable programs, and clearly know who the popular shows are. (I have to ponder that dichotomy for a while, lol! Perhaps as a part of the philosophy of "know thine enemy", or something.)

But on another note, I have to notice that MMS and the ongoing "pH unbalanced" aquaponics system hasn't been mentioned by anyone involved for quite a while now. (I wonder how the aquaponics FISH are doing without their MMS??)

Hal and Michelle's comments in recent weeks are fixated on freedom of religion, fear mongering ("this could happen to YOU"), denial of any responsibility, and reiterations of divine mandates for absolute parental control of children. I think the "actual" children have been lost in all this propaganda.

Hopefully the fish are OK.

The liberal media? Now, that would be strange to me. The Stanleys seem to keep claiming that their freedom of religion is being abridged. So why don't they stick to religion? It seems to me that they keep veering into politics. It seems to me that a concern with such worldly matters would not enhance spiritual practice. What on earth do they think the liberal media will do for them? These poor fools do not seem to understand that they should be focused upon the well-being of their children and not on getting into bed with a bunch of reporters. I guarantee you that they will wake up sullied.