Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.

The focus this time: Your children are not yours.

First, a little mood music:

Carrying on…

The state has a problem when families exercise their religious beliefs contrary to the doctrine of the state, as was frighteningly seen in Norway:

“That’s where the trouble first began. Last October, Eliana and Naomi got into an argument on the school bus with another child. While investigating the squabble, the school principal interviewed the girls, questioning them extensively about their home and family environment. Following this interview, she made a legally required phone call to the local child protection office (called Barnevernet in Norway).”

And while a light paddles was concerning to the Barnevernet, they were fare more concerned with the fact that the family are devout Christians (and not the fake Christianity that is expected of non-Black Metal Norwegians):

“Barnevernet swung into action, first interviewing the children’s doctors (who reported good medical care and no signs of abuse), later contacting police about the spanking allegations. An internal Barnevernet document reveals the family’s religion was indeed an extensive matter for discussion. “‘The children are talking about forgiveness and how hard it is to do what the Bible says,’ the document states. While most practicing Christians would recognize human sinfulness and the need for forgiveness as core doctrines, CPS concluded that this teaching may have caused the children stress. It was decided that Barnevernet should go to the girls’ school and interview them without their parents’ knowledge.”

The state then kept the older girls who were interviewed from going home, and then demanded the parents hand over their younger children, including an infant. And then it gets worse:

“In a chilling exchange, social workers advised a distraught Ruth to sign statements that Marius had been beating her, so she could be reunited with her children at a shelter. She refused to commit perjury against her husband, even at the cost of separation from her children. The heartache of this moment can only be imagined.”

This anti-father stance also hides a touch of acceptable xenophobia (would the state have dared move against him and his family if they were Muslim)?

Thankfully, due to international outrage, a non-judicial “County Social Welfare Board” finally allowed the family to be re-united. But absent that international outrage, the family would have been permanently sundered.

Much like in Norway, Florida has embraced an anti-father stance:

“Florida Gov. Rick Scott has vetoed popular family law reforms that would bring his state more in line with the current research on what is best for children outside of an intact family home. “… “The Florida bills would have ended permanent alimony and set a premise of shared parenting, two areas of family law that have been tangled up since the 1970s. Alimony, or spousal support, fell out of favor in the aftermath of feminism’s second wave. In the early days, when feminists were trying to scare and shame women out of their homes, alimony was seen as a safety trap. Give women alimony, and they won’t get to work breaking the glass ceiling. Thus, courts stopped granting alimony.”

If not sundered from the family, the state will go after your children, if outside of their jurisdiction:

“California’s current curriculum is already biased toward modern liberalism, but the new framework takes several giant steps further to the left. On immigration, it is anti-assimilationist; on family and sexuality, it is radically anti-traditionalist; on terrorism, it tends to ‘blame America first;’ on the 1960s, it highlights and implicitly lauds the most radical ‘black, brown, red, and yellow power movements;’ on politics, it paints a halo over progressives while perpetrating a hit job on conservatives; on economics, it elevates Keynesian liberalism and ignores everything else; on military history, it is silent or slyly antagonistic; on contemporary politics, it reads like an anti-globalization protest pamphlet.”

The entire draft history-social science framework can be read here.

TTFN.



Tweet