Just a little piece of moral relativism that floated past the window of the submersible, as we travel down into the cesspool


I bet you all 8.2p that a Moslem girl, home educated, would not be forced into a “State” “school”. The GramscoStalinist Fabian free sex buggers would never think of even daring to ask. Now I do know that most Libertarians are either atheist or anti-religious, but this is an issue of individual freedom. I have already said today on a comment that we can’t go round killing all the members of the Enemy Class upon the event of our victory on day one, since that will degrade us to their level: we will have, sadly, to continue to allow them the means to prosecute their perverted science on purpose, upon others. So the war will continue, until one side or other gets serious about a result…..

David Davis

Here.

Court orders Christian child into government education

10-year-old’s ‘vigorous’ defense of her faith condemned by judge


Posted: August 28, 2009
12:35 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as “well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level” has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too “vigorous” in defense of her Christian faith.

The decision from Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl’s “vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.”

The recommendation was approved by Judge Lucinda V. Sadler, but it is being challenged by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, who said it was “a step too far” for any court.

The ADF confirmed today it has filed motions with the court seeking reconsideration of the order and a stay of the decision sending the 10-year-old student in government-run schools in Meredith, N.H.

(Story continues below)

The dispute arose as part of a modification of a parenting plan for the girl. The parents divorced in 1999 when she was a newborn, and the mother has homeschooled her daughter since first grade with texts that meet all state standards.

In addition to homeschooling, the girl attends supplemental public school classes and has also been involved in a variety of extra-curricular sports activities, the ADF reported.

But during the process of negotiating the terms of the plan, a guardian ad litem appointed to participate concluded the girl “appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith” and that the girl’s interests “would be best served by exposure to a public school setting” and “different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief … in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs.”

According to court documents, the guardian ad litem earlier had told the mother, “If I want her in public school, she’ll be in public school.”

The marital master hearing the case proposed the Christian girl be ordered into public school after considering “the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with others.”

“Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children. In this case specifically, the court is illegitimately altering a method of education that the court itself admits is working,” said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons of Hampton.

“The court is essentially saying that the evidence shows that, socially and academically, this girl is doing great, but her religious beliefs are a bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews. This is a step too far for any court to take.”

“The New Hampshire Supreme Court itself has specifically declared, ‘Home education is an enduring American tradition and right,'” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. “There is clearly and without question no legitimate legal basis for the court’s decision, and we trust it will reconsider its conclusions.”

The case, handled in the Family Division of the Judicial Court for Belknap County in Laconia, involves Martin Kurowski and Brenda Kurowski (Voydatch), and their daughter.

The ADF also argued that the issue already was raised in 2006 and rejected by the court.

“Most urgent … is the issue of Amanda’s schooling as the school year has begun and Amanda is being impacted by the court’s decision daily,” the court filing requesting a stay said. “Serious state statutory and federal constitutional concerns are implicated by the court’s ruling and which need to be remedied without delay.

“It is not the proper role of the court to insist that Amanda be ‘exposed to different points of view’ if the primary residential parent has determined that it is in Amanda’s best interest not to be exposed to secular influences that would undermine Amanda’s faith, schooling, social development, etc. The court is not permitted to demonstrate hostility toward religion, and particularly the faith of Amanda and Mother, by removing Amanda from the home and thrusting her into an environment that the custodial parent deems detrimental to Amanda.”

“The order assumes that because Amanda has sincerely held Christian beliefs, there must be a problem that needs solving. It is a parent’s constitutionally protected right to train up their children in the religious beliefs that they hold. It is not up to the court to suggest that a 10-year-old should be ‘exposed’ to other religious views contrary to the faith traditions of her parents. Could it not be that this sharp 10-year-old ‘vigorously’ believes what she does because she knows it to be true? The court’s narrative suggests that 10-year-olds are too young to form opinions and that they are not yet allowed to have sincerely held Christian beliefs,” the ADF said.

“Absent any other clear and convincing evidence justifying the court’s decision, it would appear that the court has indeed taken sides with regard to the issue of religion and has preferred one religious view over another (or the absence of religion). This is impermissible,” the documents said.

The guardian ad litem had an anti-Christian bias, the documents said, telling the mother at one point she wouldn’t even look at homeschool curriculum.

“I don’t want to hear it. It’s all Christian based,” she said.

// Bookmark and Share

About these ads

6 responses to “Just a little piece of moral relativism that floated past the window of the submersible, as we travel down into the cesspool

  1. These guardian ad litems (sic) are a new wrinkle over the past twenty years here, a new professional, or rather a para-professional underclass. They are supposed to represent the interests of children in messy or conflicted divorce & custody situations. It is not a matter of mediating to the the so-called adults what the child perceives & desires. So, “the interests” of the child often are submitted (through the “for your own good” fantasy filter of the “guardian”!)to positively Orwellian agandas of social engineering, here in Minnesota also.

    I swear to Christ there are simply too God-damned many people with no REAL work to do!

  2. Do gooder or state appointed meddler is perhaps a more appropriate title. The guardian ad litem sounds so important. We have them here in the UK too. Very dubious idea, giving power over a minor by dictat. The one lesson the child soon learns is that they have no rights once one of these monsters takes over their lives.

    The only way out is to have the guardian removable by the child, though don’t hold your breath on that one. A very young child would have no say at all. The concept of emancipation would be of value, but as always not easy to enforce.

    I have just moved to NH and am displeased with this nonsense and will investigate it further.

  3. Pingback: Some Wookean Dog Days « Bodwyn Wook

  4. Old Daniel Webster said, “If a couple of New Hampshiremen can’t settle this…!”

  5. The idea is that a neutral adult is to represent the children’s interests. The trouble is, like with “scientific objectivity” or something, these gentry have motives & purposes, and /these/ need clearly to be looked over BEFORE letting just anyone one board. The ill-omened female I observed at work “on” a friend’s family had obviously been thwarted of her middleclass goals & expectations in a a bad marriage of her own. She positively referred to this in so many words and at every point of the compass, and dragged all of this freight wherever she went.

    Another person was crazed by apparently projected intimations of incest in every case, and this neurotic impulse, tragically, colluded with the then-circumstance that “trained” “sex-abuse” “counselors” in those days in Minnesota were asking small children repeatedly a whole rota of obviously leading questions as part of the “diagnosis.” (This was shown clearly from numerous transcripts and finally a judge slapped everybody’s ass about it!)

  6. The payoff for the at-loose-ends neurotics was even more in sharp relief in early days when these were “voluntary” positions with no salary and only TDY and per diem paid. Not that this sort of thing should even be a “profession” in the first place, but it did let MORE hogs in the corn, rooting through many a family’s life. A certain number did use the volunteer role to aggrandise their aspirant “professional” resumes, of course….