Raid on Tony Alamo Ministries. (AP Photo/Texarkana
Gazette, Tanner Spendley, File)
To be honest with you, I don't have a definite answer to the question I pose in the title of this article. But one thing is certain, if there ever was a case for the Arkansas chapter of the ACLU to get involved with, it is the seizure of children from parents who are members of the Tony Alamo Ministries church but who are not guilty of committing any child abuse or neglect.
The similarities between the case of nearly forty children seized by the Arkansas Department of Human Services from parents of children who were part of the Tony Alamo Ministries in Fouke, Arkansas and the case of the seizure of more than 400 children from the FLDS ranch in Texas earlier in 2008, have many similarities. In both cases the leaders of the two religions were accused of and/or charged with polygamy and sexual abuse of minors. In both cases, the state seized all of the children connected with the church, whether or not those children had been abused.
But there are two major differences. In the case of the FLDS, the ACLU of Texas got involved on behalf of the FLDS, filing a friend of the court brief, along with the national organization. The ACLU also issued three press releases supporting the FLDS parents, and they attended court sessions to observe whether or not the constitutional rights of members of the FLDS were being violated.
Here are some paragraphs from one of the press releases. The comments that the ACLU makes in this press release could just as easily apply to the situation with Tony Alamo Ministries in Arkanasas. (Emphasis added).
"Last month, TDFPS seized more than 400 children during a raid on the YFZ Ranch, where individuals affiliated with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) resided; the children have since been dispersed to foster facilities across the state. In its brief supporting last week's unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of a Texas appellate court, the ACLU asserts that the state's only evidence of harm was general allegations related to the parents' "culture," "belief" and "mindset." Further, before the state may deny a mother access to and custody of her child, the U.S. Constitution and state law require the mother be assured of due process of law – including a fair hearing, individualized consideration of the evidence, and proper application of state law.
"Children and parents have the right to be together unless it is determined, applying the proper legal standards adopted by the state and consistent with the U.S. Constitution, that temporary or permanent removal is necessary," said Daniel Mach, Director of Litigation for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. "When the state has actual evidence of ongoing or imminent child abuse, it certainly should separate children from their abusers, but children may not be separated from their parents based solely on the state's disagreement with a group's thoughts or beliefs, religious or otherwise."
In its ruling last week, the Texas Third Court of Appeals found that the state had offered "legally and factually insufficient" grounds for the "extreme" measure of removing all children – from babies to teenagers – from the YFZ ranch. As the appellate court concluded, "[t]he existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the Department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger."
The ACLU brief submitted today raises a number of concerns about the lack of procedural safeguards employed by the state. First, the ACLU argues that the state failed to provide parents a fair, individualized custody hearing at the highly unusual and frequently chaotic mass proceeding held before a district court on April 17 and 18, 2008. Second, the ACLU asserts that Texas custody law must be applied fairly, impartially, and without bias to the mothers. Finally, the ACLU argument focuses on a parent's right to care for her child, a right both state and federal courts have found to be more "precious" than property rights."
The second difference between the FLDS case and the Tony Alamo Ministries case is that judge Joe Griffin, presiding over hearings involving the children seized from the Tony Alamo Ministries church has put the parents of these children in the position of choosing between their religion and their children. Judge Griffin has ruled that if these parents want to be reunited with their children, they must not live on church property or work for the church. He has done this despite the fact that some of these parents believe it is their religious duty and calling to work for the church fulltime and have been doing so for years. One can hardly imagine a judge forcing a rabbi, priest, monk or minister from making a similar choice, even though many of them work fulltime doing religious work and live on church property and solely depend on their church for their financial support.
Furthermore, when one parent, Brian Broderick, moved from church property and got a job as a painter in Little Rock in order to comply with the judge's ruling, Judge Griffin ruled that he didn't comply fast enough. He then awarded custody of Mr. Broderick's children to a relative of his wife in West Virginia, creating a hardship for Mr. Broderick as the relative now has the right to tell him if and when he can visit his children, and he has a long drive to make in order to see the children.
It is very clear from the videos below of the interrogation of Mr. Broderick's children, that his children were not abused or neglected. That explains, of course, why the Arkansas Department of Human Services was so upset when these videos were released and asked Judge Griffin for a gag order, which he granted.
As to the question I asked at the beginning of this article, why hasn't the ACLU of Arkansas gotten involved in this case when it is so similar to the FLDS case in which both the Texas and national organization got involved, there can only be two answers--lack of resources and cowardice. I know the ACLU in Arkansas has limited resources. But it does not take many resources to issue a press release stating the concerns the ACLU has about the many civil and religious liberties issues that this case raises. And if the ACLU was concerned about the seizing of children from the FLDS ranch in Texas, they should have greater concerns in this case. While fewer children were seized from the Tony Alamo Ministries church, additional rights have been violated that do not appear to have been violated in the case of the FLDS. The Arkansas ACLU has issued several press releases over the past year, but none of them deal with situations as serious as the one involving the unconstitutional seizure of children from parents who are members of the Tony Alamo Ministries.
The silence of the ACLU--and the same could be said about other religious and civil liberties groups--about the seizure of children who were not being abused from the Tony Alamo Ministries church seems to lead to the second possible conclusion.
While sometimes it is true that silence is golden, could it be that in this case it is just plain yellow?
Copyright 2009 Daniel Weaver. Permission is granted to re-post the first two paragraphs of this article, as long as a link to the entire article is provided. It is both unethical and illegal to post the article in its entirety on any website. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Comments
Dan, you declare with certainty that these children are not abused or neglected. It seems to me that you are using very narrow definitions of abuse and neglect. As a cult survivor, I am all too familiar with issues related to religion-related child abuse. After just a few minutes watching the first video you posted, red flags started popping up and I immediately identified one type of abuse/neglect that perhaps your definition does not include. I'm talking about intellectual abuse/neglect. These kids are home-schooled so as to easier indoctrinate them into Tony Alamo's perverted world-view. It is intellectual abuse and neglect to deny those children their educational rights. And it is spiritual abuse to so effectively indoctrinate them that they are denied their own religious rights, which include the right to change religions or to have no religion at all. For more kinds of abuses those children are subjected to, search Alamo on my site Religion & Child Abuse News.
Perry, Your definition of neglect is not recognized by any courts that I know of, although there is a move afoot that considers all religious training to be child abuse. Apparently you are part of that movement, but your definition of abuse and neglect is still your own. It is not the law, and hopefully never will be. All children are indoctrinated whether they go to public, private or homeschool. Some of the worst indoctrination of children took place under Stalin and Mao, and it certainly wasn't religious. It's foolish to think that kids who go to public schools somehow have more choice in the matter of what they believe. As someone who attended both public and private schools as a child and religious and state colleges as an adult, I saw no difference in the level of tolerance shown towards other views. Parents have the right to teach children their own beliefs. I don't support Tony Alamo or anyone who abuses people, but don't call people guilty just because they attend his church.
You willingly leave out the fact that children were being beaten, raped, and being given unwillingly in marriage as young as 9 years old. These are not just accusations. This was proven in a court of law, ten times!
Ten times there have been convictions for bringing children across state lines for sex. Strange that you would contend that this constitutes religious persecution.
Remember, this is just the little girls taken across state lines, that could easily be proved. We have no idea how many others have been beaten, raped or given in marriage against their will, inside the state.
I don't care what they believe or what they preach. I believe their freedoms should and need to be protected. What can not be allowed is for a group to shield illegal activities under the guise of religion. The one thing you have right is that these are the type of groups that will be used to justify the suppression of religious freedom. If there are crimes being committed than they are criminals.
Cont'
Criminals need to be treated as criminals. It has been proven that the parents have been willing participants in the abuses of these children. Forget their religion! Rape, both forced and statutory, are crimes. The state had a multitude of witnesses that these things were being done with the full consent of adults. This is a crime. That is why the state moved in the way they did.
Wrong again TomA, and I am not going to allow you to keep spewing your lies on this site. If these parents, the ones who had their children taken away, had done what you said they did, they would have been arrested. Just because some kids were abused and Tony Alamo was found guilty doesn't mean the rest of the group is guilty. You are a McCarthyite, making people guilty by association. By your logic, every child in a Catholic parish should be removed if a priest is found guilty of sexual abuse. I can understand somone's anger because they feel burned by a cult but don't take it out on people who are innocent.
A McCarthyite! Shucks, I'm not even Irish.
You are misguided in your judgment. In truth, I hope that parents are reunited with their children. I do not want any child put back into a home where they would be given to someone as a child bride against their will.
I am grateful that some of Tony Alamo's crimes has been brought to justice. All that really needs to be done is prove that the children are safe.
Due process requires that someone is to be proven guilty of a crime before they lose a property or liberty interest. In family court this is done backwards. What needs to be proven besides the guilt of these parents and that these children were abused or neglected by their parents, which so far has not been proven, is whether or not the children are as safe in foster care as in parental or familial care. Like Judge Roy Bean, Judge Griffin, prefers to hang 'em first and ask questions later.
You publish your thoughts in the public domain and claim "It is both unethical and illegal to post the article in its entirety on any website."
There goes my opinion of your veracity
Rob Aldrich, You either should complete high school or google public domain. www.examiner.com is not public domain. The articles written on here are protected by copyright laws and the copyright to each article is owned by the person who wrote the article. Your opinion of my veracity is based on your ignorance, so it has no weight. Please go back to high school or get your GED!
Dan Weaver you honestly totally disgust me! Tony Alamo is a filthy, vile, evil, man. He will pay in hell for all the unspeakable damage he has done. WAKE UP PEOPLE!! Miriam Krantz can so very easily get her children back. Miriam, all you have to do is move out of that place. You have not turned your back on God. There are soo many people who are serving the Lord and not living in that place. That place is corrupted and you know deep inside. YOu are going to have to wake up some day and right now would be a good time.
SA, You must be illiterate. I have not said one word in support of Tony Alamo. I support the parents of those children who had their children removed from them, even though the children weren't abused and the parents are not guilty of anything. You apparently believe that anyone associated with Tony Alamo should be thrown in prison. It's people like you who want to put every Muslim in prison because Muslims destroyed the World Trade Center.
Why should Miriam Krantz have to abandon her religious beliefs in order to get her children back? It's people like you that enabled Hitler to take over. You are the one that needs to wake up and realize that people are not supposed to be found guilty because of what they think, believe or advocate. Nor are they supposed to be found guilty because of whom they associate with. They are supposed to only be found guilty when they commit illegal actions. Tony Alamo is in prison because a jury found him guilty of illegal actions. What has MK done wron
Sa, your wrong about Miriam she cant easily get her kids back. Theres been parents who have moved off church property and got outside jobs but judge griffin still wouldn't give his kids back. SA. you cant believe everything the govt. and the media tell you.
SA you are a vile, evil person. You don't even know Tony Alamo and who are you to judge him? He will be judged by God's Word just as you will, not by this evil, perverted government. And I know which of you two will enter heaven. Let me give you a hint, it won't be you. It's too bad that people like you won't wake up until it's too late! Tony Alamo is a godly man. He has not done anything against God's Word. This country is supposed to use God's Word as their guide, but they don't. These evil judges use their evil, perverted minds to judge unrighteously. Well God says what He will to do to unrighteous judges and He has already done it to Dishonorable Judge Hudson. He is in hell right now and the same fate awaits you and all others like you unless you repent. If you say you're serving the Lord, the only lord you're serving is the devil and I wouldn't want to be in your shoes for all the money in the world.
The evil, one world judges found him guilty even though they said out of their own mouths that he was innocent, just like Pilate found Jesus guilty and just like they found Paul and Silas and Peter and countless other godly men in the Bible guilty. Just because an evil man finds a godly man guilty doesn't mean he IS guilty. Satan would find God guilty and kill him if he could, but he can't. And I'm glad that you nor any of these ungodly judges do not have the final say. God does!! And He said that we would be persecuted by people like you in the last days. I can't wait until He starts pouring out His plagues on you evil people, and then what are you going to do? Run and cry to your evil judges who are going to be getting destroyed right along with you? I thank God He has the final say.
Tom A is just another lying backslider. He knows very well that there were no girls at age 9 that were forced to marry someone in this church and there were no marriages of girls age 9 at all in the church. He knows this because he used to be in the church and I don't know why he left but it probably had something to do with the fact that no one wanted to marry him because he was too ugly. He is just angry that he was not popular in the church. Just because he says that it was proven that Tony took girls across state lines for sex 10 times doesn't mean anything. The FBI paid those girls to lie and say those things. It doesn't prove anything. In fact, the jury stated to the judge we can't find any evidence of sex on any of those trips or anything wrong. Can we still convict him? The judge replied, Read the original jury instructions." So out of their own mouths, Tony wasn't guilty. Now what does that tell you? This is Nazi America!!! Get used to it, this is just the beginning!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!