Nate Phelps Speaks About His Family

[Vigile]

I still don't understand how, in the face of so much publicity such a failure can continue.

 

Unless the media takes a story and runs with it, outrage is unlikely to occur. I think you can look for conspiracies or a system failure if you want to, but it's still more likely due to the fact that no one has made any charges and the media hasn't, for whatever reasons, picked up the story.

 

This is the first time I've heard of abuse allegations with their family. I don't know if these types of stories were out there before. If they were and weren't followed up on I can't fully answer to you why. I don't think it has anything to do with free speech though.

[Alice]

I still don't understand how, in the face of so much publicity such a failure can continue.

 

Unless the media takes a story and runs with it, outrage is unlikely to occur. I think you can look for conspiracies or a system failure if you want to, but it's still more likely due to the fact that no one has made any charges and the media hasn't, for whatever reasons, picked up the story.

 

This is the first time I've heard of abuse allegations with their family. I don't know if these types of stories were out there before. If they were and weren't followed up on I can't fully answer to you why. I don't think it has anything to do with free speech though.

 

'This is the first time I've heard of abuse allegations with their family'

 

This is the part I think I must not be explaining myself well enough on - what I'm saying is that separately from the physical abuse allegatons that Nate is confirming, the emotional abuse of hte children has been in the public domain for as long as the families exploits have been in the public domain, so as long as you, I, and everyone who lives in their locality (and could phone and make a referral) and works for the appropriate authorities we have all known about the fact that the children are being raised to hold and participate in homophobic hatred at this extreme end of the scale - thus we've all known they are being emotionally abused ...

 

I'm no conspiracy theorist, my view is that generally there are a number of factors that in combination (without any 'intent' of the individual facotrs to produce the resulting outcome) result in a certain state of affairs. With systems, one small change in one area can often affect the whole. If the most likely cause is that no one has thought to make charges - I would see this as a failure in the 'system' and I guess what I'm interested in is ideas that could explain why no one has ... (I think they have brought charges as far back as the 1970's in connection to the physical abuse - Nate and his older brother were seen in school with injuries that by today's standards would would consider horrific but that appear to have been accepted at the time as reasonable chastisement and within a parent's gift to administer, at the time)

 

In terms of their involvement currently in emotionally abusive behaviour - there is a difference between the UK and the US is in our laws about what it is OK to say or what isn't accepted as OK. I'm not saying that one approach or the other is better or worse here - just that I would think it would have an impact. As a social worker in te UK, if faced with a family behaving as the Phelps are - I would be able to back up my position that their behaviour was unacceptable with legislation that outlaws hate speech (we used this leglislation to prevent them from visiting the UK)

 

In relation to media interest I wonder if a factor is simply the size of our two nations. Whereever a child abuse scandal happens in the UK, at the most it's only ever going to be so many hundred miles from each and everyone's doorstep so perhaps there is more identification with cases? (although that doesn't explain why the local media to the phelps fmaily aren't running with a campaign to get social services more actively involved) I guess the risk of being sued could be an issue for snall local papers?

 

I'm not necessarily always an advocate of how the UK press approach child protection issues in the UK - I'm just very surprised about the apparent different repsonse to the emotional abuse of the phelps children and am intruigued as to the reason for this - I'm thinking that understanding this would be valuable information for society as a whole to uncover. Unless we know why as a society we fail some children we won't be able to avoid the same happening again ;-)

[Vigile]

have all known about the fact that the children are being raised to hold and participate in homophobic hatred at this extreme end of the scale - thus we've all known they are being emotionally abused ...

 

I'm not sure what the standards are for determining emotional abuse. I'm thinking it probably varies from state to state. However, now that the son is speaking out about actual physical abuse I would certainly hope that it is being investigated.

 

I think they have brought charges as far back as the 1970's in connection to the physical abuse - Nate and his older brother were seen in school with injuries that by today's standards would would consider horrific but that appear to have been accepted at the time as reasonable chastisement and within a parent's gift to administer, at the time

 

It might depend on the mentality of the school system and teachers in their community at that time. I don't know. As far as I can tell tolerance for this type of thing is much lower than it used to be so I would think if kids, even in KS show up in school with unexplained bruises that they would at a minimum be given a consultation in order to determine what's going on at home and to rule out things like natural injuries and such.

 

I can assure you, however, that generally in the US (I can't speak for every community) that the tolerance for child abuse is very low and that free speech is not a factor in protecting the abusers. It's really difficult to make any real judgments about this particular family without knowing more of the facts involved. Maybe they are being investigated. Maybe they have been able to use their knowledge of the legal system in order to frustrate the efforts of investigators, maybe it's an ongoing battle. Again, we just don't have the facts here. We can only speculate. I agree with you that these kids should be protected. I also think there is plenty of political will to nail these guys to the wall so now that this guy is speaking out, hopefully they will go after them hard if they aren't already.

 

there is a difference between the UK and the US is in our laws about what it is OK to say or what isn't accepted as OK

 

How so? If Phelps brags he beats his wife and kids he's going to be investigated for it. There is no free speech protection here, there is an admission of guilt. Perhaps, you are saying that in the UK kids who make homophobic speech that they derived from their parents would be considered emotionally abused? If so, then yes, there would be a difference. This would be protected free speech as miserable as that speech is. And again, what constitutes emotional abuse is I'm sure quite complicated in the US legal system and it would vary from state to state.

 

In relation to media interest I wonder if a factor is simply the size of our two nations. Whereever a child abuse scandal happens in the UK, at the most it's only ever going to be so many hundred miles from each and everyone's doorstep so perhaps there is more identification with cases?

 

I'm sure that's a huge factor. The US is huge by comparison. Also, the legal system is overloaded and complicated. This is a family of lawyers we are talking about. Those who know how to work the system can evade justice for a long time in many cases. Just look at OJ. I'm not defending it, just explaining it. When the system is so entrenched what easy answers can anyone offer. At most we can give it righteous indignation. At the same time, keep in mind that if this is the case that the Phelps case is probably quite unique in that most people are not evil legal geniuses and as such they don't evade the system unless they are rich enough to do so. All systems have cracks. The world will never be perfect. And a system as large as the US probably has more cracks than a smaller system like that in the UK were the population is more homogeneous and the problems are of a size that's at least slightly easier to manage.

 

I guess the risk of being sued could be an issue for snall local papers?

 

There are hardly any truly small local papers left in the US. Most are owned by massive media conglomerates that just pull down AP stories rather than doing their own investigative journalism. Any local journalism that does exist is pretty much mitigated to human interest and public interest such as city counsel rulings and such. And, we don't really know without doing a lot more research if Wichita has been covering this aspect of the story or not. Perhaps they have. It's just speculation on our part at this point.

 

And last, but not least, Americans are drowning in media coverage, stories of abuse, wars, system failures, etc... etc... I think most people are probably desensitized to it all making it difficult to incur outrage unless and until someone takes a story and airs it 24/7. A one day story tends to flame out rather quickly. I complain about this all the time, but how do you change human nature?

[Guest QuidEstCaritas?]

To Alice:

 

Quite honestly, the reason no one is doing anything about the Phelps family is because no one really gives a shit. I mean if you shut the Phelps' down then where does it stop? People start thinking like that when they start "giving a shit", over here across the pond. I am willing to bet that most fundy christian families over here beat their children too, but they don't call attention to themselves like the Phelps family does. Also, they aren't on some ridiculous microcosmic TULIP based Calvinist Crusade either with a high amount of public visibility. As a matter of fact, the only reason anyone ever heard of these motherfuckers in the first place is because of said Crusading that they do.

 

The fact of the matter is that a LOT of people over here would get nervous about government intervention in shutting down the Phelps, whereas they wouldn't so much if some random Baptist family that no one ever heard about got shut down by DSS (Department of Social Services), by virtue of charges that could not be construed to be anything other than child abuse related. It has to do with how visible things are here, it's a public issue if these people get shut down; people would cry foul and say that government has no right to get involved, people would cry hypocrite and ask why that average Baptist family is not getting shut down instead. There would be tons and tons and tons of problems with consistency if the government got involved at any level at this point. Like I can think of a boatload of reasons why no one will ever do anything about Phelps and his merry band of fucknuts.

 

 

 

P.S.

 

Over in England this would be a virtual non issue, whether it was the Phelps family or some low profile fundy Baptist family beating the shit out of their children. Over here? It's quite a bit more complicated than that for many reasons.

[Guest Marty]

I think it has more to do with freedom of religion than freedom of speech. I mean, they came in and took those girls from the mormon compound but they were eventually sent back, and there is mounds of evidence those girls are/were abused. The Phelps would make it all about religious persecution; the government is keeping them from raising their kids xtian.

 

I think that's why nobody is doing anything...just another reason to hate jesus...

[Alice]

Perhaps, you are saying that in the UK kids who make homophobic speech that they derived from their parents would be considered emotionally abused? If so, then yes, there would be a difference. This would be protected free speech as miserable as that speech is. And again, what constitutes emotional abuse is I'm sure quite complicated in the US legal system and it would vary from state to state. .....

 

That's exactly the difference I was clumsily trying to highlight!!!

 

I think the desensitisation is a big thing. In the UK, on average, one child dies at the hands of thier parents/cares as a result of abuse each week, but the media generally run with two or three each year, often when there is an absence of other political news of global diasater and generally where the child is particularly pretty or there is something to 'set them apart' ... or someone in authority to blame ...

 

To Alice:

 

Quite honestly, the reason no one is doing anything about the Phelps family is because no one really gives a shit. I mean if you shut the Phelps' down then where does it stop? People start thinking like that when they start "giving a shit", over here across the pond. ... Over here? It's quite a bit more complicated than that for many reasons.

 

That's all a bit scary ...

 

I think it has more to do with freedom of religion than freedom of speech. I mean, they came in and took those girls from the mormon compound but they were eventually sent back, and there is mounds of evidence those girls are/were abused. The Phelps would make it all about religious persecution; the government is keeping them from raising their kids xtian.

 

I can see that - I think when I'm saying 'freedom of speech' I'm including 'freedom of religion' in what I'm saying. Here, if someone say's 'but my religion says 'spare the rod and spoil the child' - we say 'reasonable chastisement only' and although we haven't been able to outlaw hitting children altogether, leaving a mark is deemed 'unreasonable' and the law trumps the religion.

 

So, in some ways it sounds as though it's the american approach to religion that could be a significant contributory factor to understanding why this is going on ...

[Vigile]

I am willing to bet that most fundy christian families over here beat their children too, but they don't call attention to themselves like the Phelps family does.

 

That's quite an extreme statement. Perhaps it fits your own experiences with friends, acquaintances, what have you. It certainly in no way, shape or form fits my experiences. I grew up in a fundy family. My close friends and relatives were all fundy. I knew a lot of fundies through church. I'm not aware of any of them who beat their wives and kids or who were abused themselves. I'm sure it happens but I have a hard time believing there is any sort of epidemic amongst fundies abusing people that is statistically significantly outside the numbers experienced in the general population.

 

Now I'm sure there are some fundy churches that do fit as trend outliers. Moreover, as you pointed out in another thread, those with emotional problems to begin with may act out in harsher ways due to the church's teachings/meme.

[Crazycatlady]

Alice, I think there is more going on here than just the freedom of speech. There is also the freedom of expression of religion. Additionally is the pervasive belief in the States that the biological parents are always the best ones to raise a child, except in extreme circumstances (or if the biological parent lives in a country we don't like -- I'm thinking of the Cuban kid from about ten years ago). If a mother puts her newborn up for adoption and then changes her mind two, five, ten, even twelve years later (varies a bit by state) and sues for custody, she is likely to get it. Even though the child does not think of her as his/her parent. When a parent is sentenced to jail, including most cases of child abuse, that parent gets to decide where the child goes. I have always been of the opinion that we give too much credence to parents in this country. Go on, accuse me of being un-American. It isn't the first time and it won't be the last, I'm sure.

[Alice]

I'm starting to get the differnece between freedom of speech and freedom of expression of religion thing - I think I've always viewed it as part of the same.

 

I think what we have is requirement for 'religious tolerance' - rather than 'freedom of religious expression' - the ideas are similar but they start and end in different places I guess.

 

We also have enshrined in law a presumption that children are 'best cared for within their family of birth' - unless the wellbeing of child is compromised as a result. I'm pretty sure we have fewer 'freedoms' in the UK in terms of how we raise our children. I know this is an emotive subject, so if I say that I think the lines are drawn in different places in terms of what is tolerated in one nation over another, this can come across as suggesting more nation is more 'accepting of child abuse' than another - which would be hard to hear.

 

We hear it in the UK from several european nations who would consider the UK to be far more tolerant of 'child abuse' than they are - because we do not have an outright ban on hitting children (only on leaving a mark). I am not wishing to open up the smacking.spanking debate ... just to highlight cultural differences in what is percieved as 'acceptable' and what isn't.

 

The religious freedom of expression is a big one - I know the whole snake thing in church would never get past health and safety in the UK!!!

[EmmaRose]

Alice, I think there is more going on here than just the freedom of speech. There is also the freedom of expression of religion. Additionally is the pervasive belief in the States that the biological parents are always the best ones to raise a child, except in extreme circumstances (or if the biological parent lives in a country we don't like -- I'm thinking of the Cuban kid from about ten years ago). If a mother puts her newborn up for adoption and then changes her mind two, five, ten, even twelve years later (varies a bit by state) and sues for custody, she is likely to get it. Even though the child does not think of her as his/her parent. When a parent is sentenced to jail, including most cases of child abuse, that parent gets to decide where the child goes. I have always been of the opinion that we give too much credence to parents in this country. Go on, accuse me of being un-American. It isn't the first time and it won't be the last, I'm sure.

 

 

Um, that's not exactly true. A mother who relinqueshes her child as a newborn essentially signs away her rights forever and always, including any right to ever see the child again until the child is 18 (even in an open adoption there is no legal agreement for the adoptive parents to mantain contact with birth parents).

 

"Once birth parents voluntarily terminate their parental rights (and once any possible time for revocation has passed), the birth parents may not have any parental rights with respect to that child. And once the actual adoption process is fully complete, it is extremely difficult to overturn." http://www.life123.com/parenting/adoption/...ents-have.shtml

 

I completely agree with how we give too much credence to parents. Children are not property.

[Guest QuidEstCaritas?]

Alice, I think there is more going on here than just the freedom of speech. There is also the freedom of expression of religion. Additionally is the pervasive belief in the States that the biological parents are always the best ones to raise a child, except in extreme circumstances (or if the biological parent lives in a country we don't like -- I'm thinking of the Cuban kid from about ten years ago). If a mother puts her newborn up for adoption and then changes her mind two, five, ten, even twelve years later (varies a bit by state) and sues for custody, she is likely to get it. Even though the child does not think of her as his/her parent. When a parent is sentenced to jail, including most cases of child abuse, that parent gets to decide where the child goes. I have always been of the opinion that we give too much credence to parents in this country. Go on, accuse me of being un-American. It isn't the first time and it won't be the last, I'm sure.

 

 

Um, that's not exactly true. A mother who relinqueshes her child as a newborn essentially signs away her rights forever and always, including any right to ever see the child again until the child is 18 (even in an open adoption there is no legal agreement for the adoptive parents to mantain contact with birth parents).

 

"Once birth parents voluntarily terminate their parental rights (and once any possible time for revocation has passed), the birth parents may not have any parental rights with respect to that child. And once the actual adoption process is fully complete, it is extremely difficult to overturn." http://www.life123.com/parenting/adoption/...ents-have.shtml

 

I completely agree with how we give too much credence to parents. Children are not property.

 

While children are not "property" the question is one of a matter of emphasis: Should the children be forcibly taken away from the parents and made the "property" of the State in an effort to curb the types of child abuse we are talking about? That's a serious and complex question with no easy and clear cut answer. Also, if one starts saying such parents are "unfit" to parent and the State attempts to mark them as such then one starts to kinda sorta get into the area of eugenics.

[Vigile]

so if I say that I think the lines are drawn in different places in terms of what is tolerated in one nation over another, this can come across as suggesting more nation is more 'accepting of child abuse' than another - which would be hard to hear.

 

I'm still not convinced that laws in this area are all that different in the US. What makes comparison difficult is the fact that the US is a Federal system. Policy in these areas is set by the state, not generally determined by the US supreme court. So where you get variances will be with individual states and communities. In other words, you are comparing one system with 50.

 

I also am not convinced this is a religious freedom issue as others have supposed. Constitutionally protected freedoms do not cover abusers in this way. This family may have used their legal wiles to evade their local system but that may say more about the ineptitude of their local prosecutor and/or child protective services office than it says about US law.