Democratic Party official accused in satanic rape, kidnap

FROM WND

Woman, husband said to shackle victims to beds, keep them in dog cages without food

A Democratic Party official and her husband are facing charges in connection with alleged satanic rituals involving the kidnap, rape and starvation of another couple in North Carolina.

Joy Johnson, 30, a vice-chairwoman of the Durham County Democratic Party and vice chairwoman of the Young Democrats, made an appearance in court yesterday after she and her spouse, Joseph Craig, were arrested Friday.

Craig, 25, is charged with second-degree rape, second-degree kidnapping and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon for an incident in January and another in May. Johnson is charged with two counts of aiding and abetting.

According to published and broadcast reports, prosecutors said a man and a woman met Craig through a shared interest in Satan worship, although the couple never consented to any physical abuse

Craig allegedly shackled his victims to beds, kept them in dog cages and starved them inside his home. Police say he beat the man with a cane and a cord, and raped the woman.

“This goes well above what they were interested in doing,” Mark McCullough, an assistant district attorney, told WTVD-TV.

McCullough was unsuccessful yesterday in having Judge Nancy Gordon increase Johnson’s bail to $500,000 from the $270,000 set by a magistrate.

“Part of the allegations are that satanic worship is part of this case,” he told the Raleigh News & Observer.

State Sen. Floyd McKissick, D-Durham, said he had been told Johnson had resigned her positions with the party.

“I was absolutely shocked and flabbergasted,” McKissick told the paper. “You never would have suspected allegations that she would have had any participation in these rituals.”

Along with her interest in the Democratic Party, Johnson is one of the driving forces of a New Age website called “Indigo Dawn,” a name which, according to the site, was given to Johnson during a meditation vision.

“She decided to explore the New Age community more, and after taking a course in Reiki healing, experiencing past-life regression along with direct guidance from her spirit guides, she confirmed that her destiny was to help bring about the New Age on Earth,” Johnson’s online biography states. “Joy shared her vision with her husband, Joe; as a result the Indigo Dawn was founded to raise the vibration of energy on Earth.”

Among the services Johnson offers online are “intuitive guidance, past-life regression, spirit guide communication and healing and cleansing.”

Del.icio.us : Crime, Democratic Party, Joseph Craig, Joy Johnson, News, Obama, Politics, Religion, hillary, satanic
Zooomr : Crime, Democratic Party, Joseph Craig, Joy Johnson, News, Obama, Politics, Religion, hillary, satanic
Technorati : Crime, Democratic Party, Joseph Craig, Joy Johnson, News, Obama, Politics, Religion, hillary, satanic
Flickr : Crime, Democratic Party, Joseph Craig, Joy Johnson, News, Obama, Politics, Religion, hillary, satanic

What’s wrong with being gay?

Author: Ann Lamont , Creation Ministries International.

The issue of homosexual behavior has had a lot of publicity of late. Homosexuals say that the slaves have been freed and women have been liberated, so gay rights are long overdue. Society does seem to be moving in that direction. Many homosexuals are “coming out” and openly declaring their homosexuality. In many parts of the western world, homosexual couples receive the same recognition as heterosexual couples with regard to social security benefits. Some church leaders are giving their blessing to homosexual relationships, homosexual church members and even homosexual ministers.

Many homosexuals’ claim that…

1. They are made that way.

2. Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else.

3. If it feels right to those involved, it is nobody else’s business.

4. Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid. (Some even claim that the Bible condones homosexual relationships.)

Made that way?

Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said …

“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”1

In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.

Three main studies are cited by “gay rights” activists in support of their argument2Hamer’s X-chromosome research,3 LeVay’s study of the hypothalamus,4 and Bailey and Pillard’s study of identical twins who were homosexuals.5

In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, “the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results”.6 There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person’s genes.

To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person’s bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior the law rightly holds them accountable.

The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality states “that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity… This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity.”7 The report affirms that “the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin.”7

The foundational teaching on marriage and sexual issues is found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). Genesis teaches us that “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan, male and female complementing each other. That is, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Madam and Eve.

Genesis also teaches that God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25). There are a number of reasons why He did so.

1. The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality.

2. The combination of male and female enables man (and the animals) to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28 “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth.” This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17). But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms “that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation.”7

3. Thirdly, God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman’s role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one. The enterprising God-fearing woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an inspiring role model.

No harm?

Andrew Lansdown points out that ‘homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi’s Sarcoma and AIDS.’1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8

Effect on others

Secular psychologists assure us that ‘children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity’.6 The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient.

“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).

You cannot faithfully teach God’s Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God’s Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God’s grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin.

Nobody else’s business?

Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody’s business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior.

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).

Disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God’s authority.

Some people argue that the Old Testament law (including Leviticus 18 and 20) was superseded with the coming of Christ. However, we should at least consider as binding those aspects of the law that are renewed in the New Testament. The teaching of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was certainly reaffirmed in the New Testament.

Equally valid?

Some people claim that homosexual behavior was only condemned in the Bible because it was associated with idolatry (e.g. 1 Kings 14:24). However, it is clearly condemned apart from idolatry as well (e.g. Leviticus 18:22). It is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion.

“For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another…” (Romans 1:26-27).

The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means “men who sleep with men.” It is the same Greek word used for “homosexual offender” in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV).

Some people claim that the sin involved in Sodom was rejecting hospitality customs or selfishness rather than homosexual behavior. Certainly, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their reported sin was grievous to God (Genesis 18:20). God sent angels to Sodom and…

“Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them” (Genesis 19:4-5).

“While it is true that the Hebrew word yadha does not necessarily mean ‘to have sex with,’ nonetheless in the context of Sodom and Gommorah, it clearly had this meaning. …It means ‘to know sexually’ in this very chapter when Lot refers to his two daughters not having “known” a man (19:8).” 9 You would not offer virgins to appease a mob if their sin was lack of hospitality, but only if their desire was sexual.

Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. “The very next verse of Ezekiel (v. 50) calls their sin an ‘abomination.’ This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22.”10

It is also used in Scripture to describe such things like the practice of offering children to Moloch, but never such things as mere selfishness or lack of hospitality. Even in legal parlance, the word used to refer to one aspect of homosexual practice is ’sodomy’.

Another argument is that Jonathon and David were homosexuals as ‘Jonathan loved David (1 Sam. 18:3), that Jonathan stripped in David’s presence (18:4), [and] that they kissed each other (20:41)’.11

However, “David’s love for Jonathan was not sexual (erotic) but a friendship (philic) love. And Jonathan did not strip himself of all his clothes, but only of his armor and royal robe (1 Sam. 18:4).”12 Also, a kiss was a normal greeting in that day, such as when Judas kissed Jesus. In several cultures today, men normally greet each other with a kiss, too. Further, David’s love for his wives, especially Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation.

Isaiah 56:3 states that eunuchs will not be excluded from God’s presence (“my temple”), but practicing homosexuals are not eunuchs. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all.

Other scriptural arguments for homosexuality can similarly be easily refuted. It is clear that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage sanctioned in the Bible and that homosexual practice is always condemned.

Punishment

The Bible not only describes homosexual behavior as detestable, but it also calls for the punishment of those involved (Leviticus 20:13). Their unrepentant attitude caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25).

Just as homosexual conduct has been punished in the past, so it will also be punished by God in the future.

“…Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortion ers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Hope

However, there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God’s grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6-7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners.

“Liberal” churches espouse tolerance of homosexual behavior in the name of “love.” They plug for the acceptance of homosexual conduct as normal, “because they can’t help it.” They are not only wrong about the latter, but they are actually not being at all loving towards homosexuals, because, contrary to the Bible, they reduce the homosexual person to the level of an animal, driven by instinct. In removing moral responsibility from the person, they dehumanize them, whereas the Bible says we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), with the power of moral choice.

Furthermore, the gospel proclaims liberation from the bondage of sin, including homosexual sin, whereas the “liberals” tell the homosexual that they cannot help it, and they can’t help them either, so they will accept them as they are! However, many a person has been gloriously rescued from the bondage of homosexual sin (and other sin) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but only Bible-believing Christians can offer such hope.13

Conclusion

As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis.

More on-line information on this topic

• What about gays needs to change? Answer
  It may not be what you think.

• What does the Bible say about same sex marriages? Answer

• Can a gay or lesbian person go to heaven? Answer

• What should be the attitude of the church toward homosexuals and homosexuality? Answer

• Read stories from those who have struggled with homosexuality – GO

Del.icio.us : CHRISTIAN ANSWERS, Family, Gay, Homosexuality, Life, News, Politics, religion, science
Zooomr : CHRISTIAN ANSWERS, Family, Gay, Homosexuality, Life, News, Politics, religion, science
Technorati : CHRISTIAN ANSWERS, Family, Gay, Homosexuality, Life, News, Politics, religion, science
Flickr : CHRISTIAN ANSWERS, Family, Gay, Homosexuality, Life, News, Politics, religion, science

‘Gay’ rights group to Supremes: Don’t let people vote

FROM WND

Lawyers try to cut California marriage amendment from ballot

Homosexual-rights advocates have asked California’s Supreme Court to block citizens from voting this fall on a measure voters originally brought to the ballot: Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Act.

Proposition 8, so labeled when Secretary of State Debra Bowen certified it earlier this month for placement on the Nov. 4 ballot, is a constitutional amendment that states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The amendment was created by voter initiative with the signatures of 1.1 million voters, more than the required 694,354 needed to place an issue on the ballot.

Lawyers representing the ACLU and the homosexual-rights group Equality California, however, filed a petition earlier this month in the state’s highest court to strike Proposition 8 from the ballot. The opponents claimed the measure is not merely an amendment, but a revision, which a lawyer told WND is defined as a radical rewrite of the Constitution that would drastically upset the social fabric of California and require convening a constitutional convention to approve.

Liberty Counsel founder Mathew Staver told WND that if there was any radical reconstruction of California’s social fabric, it was done last month when the state Supreme Court ignored over a century of precedent in the its definition of marriage with a 4-3 ruling that deemed a law defining marriage between one man and one woman unconstitutional.

“They’re suggesting the Supreme Court can rewrite the entire institution of marriage, but people can’t amend the Constitution to go back to its historical definition,” Staver said. “It’s absolutely ridiculous to argue that courts can turn society upside down in 30 days, but the people have no right to define it.”

Criticizing homosexual marriage’s legal advocates, Staver said, “Their agenda is to trample the will of the people and elevate by force the will of four individuals on the Supreme Court over the will of millions of voters.”

Today Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit litigation organization dedicated to religious freedom and the traditional family, filed a motion in the state’s Supreme Court to intervene in the case, allowing Randy Thomasson of Campaign for California Families and former California Assemblyman Larry Bowler to defend Proposition 8.

Stating that the state’s current attorney general has never effectively defended traditional marriage, Staver told WND, “It’s prudent to have a rigorous defense of Proposition 8. These two guys have been involved in the ‘gay’ marriage issue for years, and they would be disenfranchised if same-sex groups succeed at blocking them from voting.”

California voters first sought to protect the traditional definition of marriage when in 2000 a ballot initiative called Proposition 22 was passed with 61.4 percent, or roughly 4.6 million people, voting in favor of it.

Last month, however, the state’s Supreme Court ruled Proposition 22 unconstitutional, opening the doors for same-sex marriages in California, which began earlier this month.

Even before the landmark case, aware that Proposition 22 might be overturned, many of the state’s citizens began work on collecting signatures for initiating a constitutional amendment that would define marriage between one man and one woman. Now that their initiative, Proposition 8, has been certified for the Nov. 4 general election, only a court order can prevent the people from voting on it.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen “has a ministerial duty to certify any initiative when they qualify through the petition process,” a spokesman for the secretary told the Associated Press. “She can’t remove an initiative without a judge’s order.”

The Associated Press also reports that two ballot propositions were challenged in 2005, but that the state Supreme Court overruled lower courts on both cases and allowed the propositions to remain on the ballot.

Staver told WND that the attempt to manipulate the courts to trump the will of the people is an elitist approach to social change.

“Same-sex marriage advocates think that voters are ignorant and backwards because they support traditional marriage,” he said.

Therefore, he said, they use courts in an “absolute dictator approach to force ‘gay’ marriage down the throats of California citizens.”

Further, Staver warned, if judges disarm people from voting, effectively rendering their political voice impotent, “the people will not sit back and allow courts to suppress their freedom to vote.”

Ron Prentice, chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com Executive Committee, previously told WND, “The people’s overwhelming support to protect the longstanding meaning of marriage as between a man and a woman has been staggering. The California Marriage Amendment will allow the people of California, not politicians or judges, to reaffirm the definition of marriage by placing it in the Constitution.”

Of 28 states where such an amendment has been considered, voters in 27 states – all but Arizona – have passed the amendment. A Los Angeles Times poll last month reported 54 percent of Californians polled supported the amendment, while 35 percent opposed it. A simple majority of the vote is needed to add Proposition 8 to the California Constitution.

Del.icio.us : California, Campaign for California Families, Equality California, Gay, Homosexualtiy, Liberty Counsel, Life, News, Politics, Religon, Same sex
Zooomr : California, Campaign for California Families, Equality California, Gay, Homosexualtiy, Liberty Counsel, Life, News, Politics, Religon, Same sex
Technorati : California, Campaign for California Families, Equality California, Gay, Homosexualtiy, Liberty Counsel, Life, News, Politics, Religon, Same sex
Flickr : California, Campaign for California Families, Equality California, Gay, Homosexualtiy, Liberty Counsel, Life, News, Politics, Religon, Same sex

7 more states say no to ‘gay marriage’

FROM WND

But homosexuals will try to ‘bypass voters,’ says legal expert

Seven more states have seen voters reject the idea of “gay marriage ” by implementing constitutional amendments that protect the biblical concept of holy matrimony – that is between one man and one woman only.

But legal experts are warning that homosexuals undoubtedly will try to bypass the will of voters however they can.

“When you look at the country as a whole, it’s obvious where Americans stand on marriage. But the battle is not over. The opposition will continue to attempt to bypass the will of the people,” said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.

In this election, voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina , South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin all adopted such amendments. Colorado voters went even one step further, emphatically rejecting a referendum that would have allowed the extension of benefits to “domestic partners,” a plan that would have created an “alternate marriage” plan for homosexuals.

The vote in Arizona on that state’s proposal was awaiting a final outcome because of large numbers of early ballots that hadn’t been counted yet, officials said.

The ADF, although not an activist group, has been involved extensively in defending marriage amendments from court challenges.

“This is another victory in the ongoing battle to protect marriage and what’s in the best interests of our children,” said Lavy.

But he said the nation needs marriage amendments “on both the state and federal level because they are the only way to prevent special interests from using the courts to sidestep the will of the people.”

“Political special interests shouldn’t trump what’s in the best interest of families and children. Who’s more important: our children or special interest groups?” he said.

To date, in 27 states where a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage has been proposed, voters have adopted it, with Arizona’s outcome pending.

“Americans clearly don’t want same-sex ‘marriage,’” he said. “Marriage is a national issue and the national results speak for themselves. Poll and national poll shows Americans want marriage defined as one man and one woman.”

He said more information about protecting marriage is available at www.domawatch.org, which stands for Defense of Marriage Act, state laws that also have been used to protect marriage.

In Virginia, Victoria Cobb’s group called Family Foundation lobbied for the proposal .

“We knew all along that a majority favored the amendment. It was just a matter of getting people to the polls,” she said. “Tonight, this issue has been settled.”

The vote to ban “gay” marriage in South Carolina came on a nearly 4-1 division, and supporters say such constitutional amendments are not nearly as likely to be overturned by activist and liberal judges as state laws, which already had been used in several states to provide some level of protection for traditional marriage.

The protection for traditional marriage, before this election, had been approved by voters in 20 out of the 20 states where it had been proposed.

“The best that they (traditional marriage opponents) can do is confuse the issue,” States Issues Analyst Mona Passignano, of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family Action, told WND as the campaigns for the marriage protections gained speed in recent weeks.

“What they’re running up against is that people just want traditional marriage protected,” she said.

During 2005, Texas and Kansas voters approved marriage protection amendments, and in the sweep of the 2004 vote, 13 states took the same action, including voters in Arkansas, Georgia , Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Utah, Michigan, Ohio and Oregon who did so on the same night. Missouri and Nevada also voted for the plan. Five other states had done so in earlier elections and another two dozen states have taken the same action, but by statute, not constitutional amendment.

Wisconsin’s victory was especially gratifying for campaign workers in that state. There state lawmakers went through the process a second time after first passing a Defense of Marriage law in 2003, only to see Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle veto it. The second time around, for this year’s election, they pursued the constitutional amendment process, which does not require a governor’s signature.

Del.icio.us : Homosexuality, News, Politics, Religion, gay marriage
Zooomr : Homosexuality, News, Politics, Religion, gay marriage
Technorati : Homosexuality, News, Politics, Religion, gay marriage
Flickr : Homosexuality, News, Politics, Religion, gay marriage

Court affirms law calling unborn ‘living human beings’

FROM WND

Ruling lifts Planned Parenthood injunction against state’s abortion statute

A federal court ruled against Planned Parenthood and rejected an injunction against a state law requiring doctors to tell women seeking abortions that they may face serious medical conditions and will “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit issued a 7-4 ruling Friday to lift an injunction against the South Dakota informed consent abortion law. Attorneys representing the Alliance Defense Fund filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Family Research Council in defense of the law.

“A woman’s life is worth more than Planned Parenthood’s bottom line,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence in a press release. “Anyone truly concerned about the interests of women supports making sure they have access to all the information necessary to make a fully informed decision. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, has argued adamantly to restrict the information women have about the lives of their pre-born babies. We’re pleased the court’s decision today will make sure women have access to the information they need and deserve.”

The court said U.S. Supreme Court rulings allow a state to “use its regulatory authority to require a physician to provide truthful, non-misleading information relevant to a patient’s decision to have an abortion, even if that information might also encourage the patient to choose childbirth over abortion.”

The South Dakota act defines a human being as “an individual living member of the species Homo sapiens, including the unborn human being during the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation.”

According to the law, a woman is not considered to be informed unless she receives written notice stating:

• That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
• That the pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being an that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;
• That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated;
• A description of all known medical risks of the procedure including depression and related psychological stress and increased risk of suicide

Planned Parenthood moved for the preliminary injunction against the law, arguing that it would “violate physicians’ free speech rights by compelling them to deliver the State’s ideological message.”

The new ruling reverses a federal district court opinion barring enforcement of the 2005 informed consent law and sends the case back to district court.

Del.icio.us : Family, Life, News, Planned Parenthood, Politcs, Religion, Science, abortion
Zooomr : Family, Life, News, Planned Parenthood, Politcs, Religion, Science, abortion
Technorati : Family, Life, News, Planned Parenthood, Politcs, Religion, Science, abortion
Flickr : Family, Life, News, Planned Parenthood, Politcs, Religion, Science, abortion

Government chases homeschool family

FROM WND

Mom, dad now seek help from human rights tribunal

Members of a German homeschooling family who fled to Austria, where the activity remains legal, have moved again – this time to Canada – to escape continuing government actions that now are the subject of a protest lodged at the European Court of Human Rights.

The case of Andreas and Katharina Plett is being addressed by Joel Thornton, chief of the International Human Rights Group, who alleges Germany is violating articles 8, 9, 10, 14, and 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights with its persecution of homeschooling families.

The Paderborn family is among several in Germany who have challenged the nation’s Nazi-era ban on parents teaching their children at home. Thornton told WND that in the Pletts’ case, one of the government maneuvers gave the Youth Welfare Office the authority to determine where the Pletts’ two youngest children live .

According to a Brussels Journal report at the time, a plain-clothes policewoman rang the Pletts’ doorbell early one day, and when Katharina Plett opened the door, a team of officers who had concealed themselves forced their way in.

Katharina was able to notify her husband by telephone since he and the children were not at home, and instead of returning, they traveled directly to Austria and set up a residence.

However, German authorities continue to try to impose their requirements on the family, since it still owns property in Germany, and the Pletts now are challenging not only the authority to decide where the children will live but the other decisions in their case as well.

“About a month ago the family fled to Canada to be together without fear of government officials taking their children,” Thornton told WND.

“Though the court has been unwilling to uphold international law in regards to parents’ rights in educational matters, it is our hope that the court will look at the number of families continuing to have problems and decide to take the initiative to enforce the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights that are currently being violated by the German courts,” Thornton said.

The previous decision came in the now-infamous Konrad case in which the same court concluded Germany’s ban on homeschooling – in place since the Nazis reigned – does not violate the convention’s religious rights provision. The court ruled it was important for the nation to avoid parallel societies created by religious groups.

The new case raises that issue but several others as well.

The complaint, filed Friday, says, “The Plett family has suffered the deprivation of their rights guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention in that respect for their private and family life has been violated without demonstrated necessity for national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

It also alleges violations of Article 9, contending their “religious convictions” have been violated, and Article 10 violations involving “freedom of expression, particularly the freedom to impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities.”

Further, the court action alleges Germany is discriminating against the family based on their religious convictions and is violating Protocol 1, Article 2, which states that “in the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the state shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religions and philosophical convictions.”

The appeals says, “The Plett family is asking this court to overturn the decision of all the German courts and declare that the state took improper custody of their children while exercising their rights. … The Plett family asks this court to clarify that the rights guaranteed under Articles 8, 9, 10 and 14 are not subject to governmental intervention without clear and convincing evidence that homeschooling their children would rise to the level of violating the interferences regulated by the Convention. That is not the case here.”

The action also seeks a cancellation of all fines imposed by Germany and the recovery of all costs.

Thornton told WND the children continue to live with the family only because the state Youth Welfare Office never has exercised its authority to determine where they are required to live. Such situations are not unusual in Germany. However, they create major complications for families doing any traveling.

The Pletts have their roots in Germany but had been living in Russia before returning. They decided to homeschool after the parents “perceived a negative influence of the public school onto their children.”

In 2005, German authorities ordered decisions about the children’s residence given to the Youth Welfare Office without a hearing. The result was the family’s sudden move to Austria. Their further move came after Germany continued to try to exercise control of the family even while living in Austria.

In 2006, the Strasbourg, France-based court ruled in the Konrad case. In that dispute, Fritz and Marianna Konrad, who argued Germany’s compulsory school attendance endangered their children’s religious upbringing and promoted teaching inconsistent with the family’s Christian faith, were told they did not have a case.

The court said the Konrads belong to a “Christian community which is strongly attached to the Bible” and rejected public schooling because of the explicit sexual indoctrination programs the courses included.

The German court already had ruled that the parental “wish” to have their children grow up in a home without such influences “could not take priority over compulsory school attendance.” The decision also said the parents do not have an “exclusive” right to lead their children’s education.

“The parents’ right to education did not go as far as to deprive their children of that experience,” the decision said. “Not only the acquisition of knowledge, but also the integration into and first experience with society are important goals in primary school education. The German courts found that those objectives cannot be equally met by home education even if it allowed children to acquire the same standard of knowledge as provided for by primary school education.”

A website for the Practical Homeschool Magazine noted one of the first acts by Hitler when he moved into power was to create the governmental Ministry of Education and give it control of all schools, and school-related issues.

In 1937, the dictator said, “The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.”

WND has reported multiple times on Germany’s attack on homeschoolers, including earlier this summer when a judge handed down three-month prison sentences for two homeschooling parents.

The sentences for Juergen and Rosemarie Dudek came in Germany’s equivalent of a district court in the state of Hesse, according to a staff attorney for the Home School Legal Defense Association. The group, the premier homeschooling advocacy organization in the world, has been monitoring and helping in the Dudeks’ case since before a federal prosecutor announced his intention more than a year ago to see the parents behind bars.

Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has commented on the issue on a blog, noting the government “has a legitimate interest in countering the rise of parallel societies that are based on religion.”

As WND reported, Drautz said schools teach socialization, and that is important, as evident in the government’s response when a German family in another case wrote objecting to police officers picking their child up at home and delivering him to a public school.

“The minister of education does not share your attitudes toward so-called homeschooling,” said a government letter in response. “… You complain about the forced school escort of primary school children by the responsible local police officers. … In order to avoid this in future, the education authority is in conversation with the affected family in order to look for possibilities to bring the religious convictions of the family into line with the unalterable school attendance requirement.

Del.icio.us : Family, Life, News, Politics
Zooomr : Family, Life, News, Politics
Technorati : Family, Life, News, Politics
Flickr : Family, Life, News, Politics