[ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation...

[Lee Corbin]

Spike wrote

> But the critical precedent set by the FLDS raid was
> taking *all the kids in the neighborhood* when some
> subset of that group is judged to be out of line, with
> no legal proof required.

But this occurred in the U.S., not in a country where the
law is applied strictly and impartially. For over fifty years
now, judges have tried to do what is "right", instead of
following the law.

> It is too easy to imagine this standard being applied to
> the Muslim community and the local CPS attempting
> to seize the children of *anyone* known to be part of
> that mosque.

Honestly, I can *not*  imagine it.  No, it's not going to happen,
and the Muslim communities are correct in not feeling at all
worried. 

> Then if they don't, why is not the CPS considered
> negligent? Once they are finished there, where next?

and Rafal commented

> ### After Mormons and Moslems there will be libertarians,
> atheists, homosexuals, Ba'hai, the usual suspects.

I'm sorry, but you're quite mistaken. The group that was
attacked was a small and very unpopular sect of Mormons,
(who are not terribly popular to begin with). They could,
and were, attacked with impunity. 

None of the groups that you have listed is similarly
vulnerable. All have huge support not only in the U.S.,
but around the world, and they also have immense
political and social connections.  And that is what,
in reality, it is all about.

The law really has very little to do with it, except to
license what the authorities want to do anyway.

The authorities will not be able to go after those other
groups until either the law is explicitly changed (which
won't happen) or until some kind of religious revival
sweeps the U.S. that makes attacks on such groups
sufficiently popular.

Lee