[foutsc]

First they came for the Branch Davidians, but I wasn’t a branch davidian. Then they came for the muzzie wuzzies, but I wasn’t a muzzie wuzzie...

A few of you have mentioned logic here, which is interesting because I see very little of it in your responses. Even if child abuse is proven, it does not follow that she will be killed. Her father has been charged with nothing so far. (go Google “Logic non-sequitur)

Under the constitution (remember that document?) some other muslim cutting off somebody’s head doesn’t make her father guilty. White men used to lynch black men. Does that make me a racist threat?

This is a plea for conservatives to think through an issue before knee-jerking. This is a complex case. In the wild-eyed stampede to attack Islam you could end up trampling the constitution.

Curiously, I noticed no one addressed this preacher who lured her from her home.

Finally, we are about 2 steps away from home-schoolers being declared religious nuts, forcing a showdown between parents in their home and the state that wants to herd everyone into public institutions.

[the long march]

You are so far in the field wondering around it is pathetic.

In case you haven’t heard The Constitution is NOT a suicide pact

[San Jacinto]

You’re a nut. The preacher gave her a haven and safety from the murderous cult she was victim to. You’re attempt to compare actual religious beliefs to a murderous cult is the most pathetic part of it.

[Kenny Bunk]

Even if child abuse is proven, it does not follow that she will be killed. Her father has been charged with nothing so far. (go Google “Logic non-sequitur)

Unmitigated codswallop. ...so your logical conclusion is that she must be returned to experience more physical abuse, because it hasn't been fatal ...yet? The father has, according to his daughter and witnesses, physically abused the child in the past. And under our laws, that is enough to remove any child from any parent. Whether or not the father is ever charged for that abuse, or found guilty or innocent, is another matter.

The Judge ordered the child to be under the jurisdiction of the Child Protection Agency while he personally continued to direct an investigation of the case. I sincerely hope the child reaches her majority before the investigation is concluded.

Fortunately, this child is very lucky that the judge in this case does not follow your line of "reasoning." You see, the judge cannot be certain that this particular Muslim parent is not now, or will possibly become, an "honor killer." That is because Muslims (The Religion of Peace) have demonstrated a history of this murderous behavior toward women.

The judge was logical in his pursuit of this child's safety.

[Velveeta]

Even if child abuse is proven, it does not follow that she will be killed.

I got sick to my stomach reading that sentence of yours.

[PapaBear3625]

Here's the bottom line, leaving all religious considerations aside:

(1) She's 17, an age where she should have some degree of voice in how she lives her life.

(2) She does not want to live with her Muslim parents any more, claiming fear for her safety.

Just emancipate her and be done with it.

[AfterManyASummer]

You are absolutely right. Equal protection under the law means that a Muslim father should be treated the same way as a Christian father.

In a few decades, gay children will run away from home, telling the authorities that their Christian parents want to beat them up; and the precedent is being set here.

A minor belongs with his or her parents. The state has no business deciding which religions are dangerous and which aren’t, that applies to Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Unitarians, and others. You don’t pick and choose what groups deserve First Amendment protections.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

In the wild-eyed stampede to attack Islam you could end up trampling the constitution.

I learned everything I needed to know about Islam on September 11, 2001. You are an idiot!