Two Trees of Knowledge| High Court Judgment: Christian Beliefs Harmful to Children | | Posted by Diane on Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 5:21pm | In a landmark judgment, which will have a serious impact on the future of fostering and adoption in the UK, the High Court has suggested that Christians with traditional views on sexual ethics are unsuitable as foster carers, and that homosexual ‘rights’ trump freedom of conscience in the UK. The Judges stated that Christian beliefs on sexual ethics may be ‘inimical’ to children, and they implicitly upheld an Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) submission that children risk being ‘infected’ by Christian moral beliefs.
Today’s ruling relates to the dispute between married couple Eunice and Owen Johns and Derby City Council. The Johns applied to the Council in 2007 to foster a child but the Council blocked their application because they objected that the Johns were not willing to promote the practise of homosexuality to a young child. In November 2010 both parties jointly asked the Court to rule on whether the Johns were able to foster children, or whether they could be excluded from doing so under equality law because of their Christian beliefs.
Today (28th February) that judgment has been released. The judges declined to make the statement that the Johns, wanting to re-establish their fostering application, had sought. Instead, the judgment strongly affirms homosexual rights over freedom of conscience and leaves the Johns currently unable to foster a child as desired, despite their proven track record as foster parents. There now appears to be nothing to stop the increasing bar on Christians who wish to adopt or foster children but who are not willing to compromise their beliefs by promoting the practise of homosexuality to small children.
The nature of the judgment means that Christians who hold orthodox Christian views on the family, marriage and sexuality will continue to face difficulties in the fostering and adoption process and the Courts will not intervene to stop this from happening. In fact, the summary contained in the judgment sends out the clear message that orthodox Christian ethical beliefs are potentially harmful to children and that Christian parents with mainstream Christian views are not suitable to be considered as potential foster parents.
In their judgment, the judges stated:
That if children are placed with parents who have traditional Christian views like the Johns “there may well be a conflict with the local authority’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children”, [1]
That there is a tension between the equality provisions concerning religious discrimination and those concerning sexual orientation. Yet, as regards fostering, “the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence”, [2]
That a local authority can require positive attitudes to be demonstrated towards homosexuality, [3]
That there is no religious discrimination against the Johns because they were being excluded from fostering due to their moral views on sexual ethics and not their Christian beliefs (This is incredible and very disingenuous as the Johns moral views cannot be separated from their religious beliefs), [4] and
That “Article 9 [of the European Human Rights Act] only provides a ‘qualified’ right to manifest religious belief and ... this will be particularly so where a person in whose care a child is placed wishes to manifest a belief that is inimical to the interests of children”. [5]
Equality and Human Rights Commission
The tax payer funded EHRC played an important role in this judgment. They intervened in the Johns case, and they suggested to the Court that a child should not, in their own words, be ‘infected’ with Christian moral beliefs. Suggesting that Christian moral beliefs on sexual ethics could ‘infect’ children is an extraordinary position for a statutory body to take. It is also deeply insulting both to the Johns, who have a proven track record of successfully raising children, and to Christians in general.
THE HIGH COURT IMPLICITLY UPHELD THIS SUBMISSION BY THE EHRC.
Johns Reaction
The judgment was greeted with disbelief and sadness today by Eunice and Owen Johns. In a statement, the couple said:
“We wanted to offer a loving home to a child in need. But because of this ruling we are unsure how we can continue the application process. We have been excluded because we have moral opinions based on our faith, and a vulnerable child has now probably missed the chance of finding a safe and caring home. We do not believe that our ordinary Christian moral views are infectious, contrary to what the Equality and Human Rights Commission believes. Being a Christian is not a crime and should not stop us from raising children. Today, it looks as though a child has missed out on a home.”
Christian Legal Centre Reaction
Andrea Minichiello Williams, CEO of Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre said:
“The Johns are a mild mannered, ordinary Christian couple, yet they may never be able to foster children again. They were willing to love a child regardless of sexual orientation, but not willing to tell a young child that practising homosexuality was a positive thing. Now, a child has likely missed out on finding a home, at a time when there is a desperate shortage of willing parents.
“Eunice and Owen Johns have been humiliated and sidelined and told by a Government body (the EHRC) that their mainstream Christian views might “infect” children. They have also effectively been told by British Judges that their views may harm children.
“The Judges have claimed that there was no discrimination against the Johns as Christians because they were being excluded from fostering due to their sexual ethics and not their Christian beliefs. This claim that their moral beliefs on sex have nothing to do with their Christian faith is a clear falsehood made in order to justify their ruling. How can the Judges get away with this?
“What has happened to the Johns is part of a wider trend seen in recent years. The law has been increasingly interpreted by Judges in a way which favours homosexual rights over freedom of conscience. Significant areas of public life are now becoming out of bounds to Christians who do not want to compromise their beliefs. If Christian morals are harmful to children and unacceptable to the State, then how many years do we have before natural children start being taken away from Christians?
“At the Christian Legal Centre our clients have included, amongst many others, a nurse suspended for offering prayer; a Council worker suspended for talking about God to a client, a teacher suspended for offering prayer; a nurse forced off frontline nursing because she wouldn’t take off her cross. We have dealt with Civil Registrars who have been demoted because they did not want to officiate at civil partnerships, and a Christian counsellor who lost his job for not wanting to give sex therapy to homosexuals. In the last few years, several Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close because they refused to place children with homosexual couples.
“There is a great imbalance in the law at the moment, resulting in ordinary people suffering. The situation must be addressed by Parliament as the Judiciary have failed to stand for civil liberties but have capitulated to the agenda of the homosexual rights lobby. We cannot have a society where you are excluded just because you don’t agree with the sexual ethics of the homosexual lobby. Britain is now leading Europe in intolerance against religious belief.”
Appeal
Please join us at Christian Concern as we seek to take a stand against injustice and to defend the right to practice the Christian faith freely in public.
To see original page click here:
http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/religious-freedom/breaking-news-high-court-judgment-suggests-christian-beliefs-harmful- | | | | | Education Bill Would Criminalize Homeschooling | | Posted by Diane on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 at 6:48am | The following is an article from HSLDA:
Family advocacy groups say that a bill recommended to the Bulgarian Parliament and proposed by Bulgaria’s Educational Commission in July would violate the rights of parents. The proposal amends the Law for Public Education which would lower the compulsory education age to 5 years old, making full-day preschool attendance mandatory. Bulgarian children would be required to attend school for a total of 12 years, until age 16, with children born at the end of the calendar year having to attend pre-school when they are still 4 years old. HSLDA has fought against these kinds of provisions in the United States because they increase government intrusion into the family and because research shows that the best place for young children is at home with a parent until they are older. If these changes become law, parents who choose home education would be at risk of criminal prosecution.
Minister of Education Sergei Ignatov warned parents that noncompliance is a criminal action, and that those who do not observe the law will be severely fined. If parents are unable to pay the fines, they will be subject to “socially beneficial labor.” Ignatov asserts that it is the state’s role to govern education. Since the Bulgarian government lacks the funds to finance an adequate public education, Bulgaria will look to the EU for financial help. The Ministry of Social Affairs has also taken a loan of 40 million leva (equivalent to $26 million in U.S. currency) from the World Bank to fund the program’s implementation.
A number of Bulgarian citizens and human rights groups consider this a serious step backwards toward totalitarianism in Bulgaria’s education system. Two decades after the fall of communism, Bulgaria still lacks a robust sphere of educational alternatives and continues to be characterized by state monopoly over education. Nonetheless, many Bulgarian parents have chosen alternative forms of education, such as private schools or home education, despite such forms being considered outside the law. These families are preparing to defend and fight for their desire for freedom.
HSLDA Director of International Relations and Staff Attorney Michael Donnelly recently spoke at a Bulgarian homeschool conference attended by Bulgarians and Romanians. Donnelly encouraged the attendees with examples from America’s homeschool history.
“You face the same kind of uncertainty today that American homeschoolers did 25 years ago,” said Donnelly. “You are the pioneers of this movement, and like the pioneers of American homeschooling, will have to follow your convictions and work tirelessly to defend your freedoms and your families. American homeschoolers are standing with you in prayer and will take action if needed to encourage your policy makers to protect home education.”
Donnelly told them their job was to change the hearts and minds of people through persistent, polite, and professional persuasion. He invoked one of America’s founders in his charge to the Bulgarian and Romanian homeschoolers present at the conference.
“As Samuel Adams, one of America’s founding fathers once said,” Donnelly recounted, “ ‘It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate and tireless minority keen to set brushfires in the minds of the people.’ ”
The Society and Values Association, a Bulgarian civil group that works to protect the rights of Bulgarian families and parents, submitted a petition to the Parliament citing the weaknesses and destructive tendencies of the proposed bill. Many other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also issued warning statements about the serious violation of parental rights that would result if the amendments come into force. The group also sent its detailed petition to a variety of Bulgarian institutions as well as to the Ombudsman, who made recommendations to the Commission for Education, Science and Issues of Children, Youth and Sports in the Parliament. There was hardly any public discussion about these proposals despite parents’ disagreement with the education bill.
The Society and Values Association asks that you join with them and let the Bulgarian government know that there are people and organizations who disagree with the proposed legislation and believe it is a natural right of parents to direct the education of their children. If you would like to support the freedom of educational choice for Bulgarian families, please contact the Bulgarian parliament by sending feedback online or by email.
http://www.hslda.org/hs/international/Bulgaria/201009160.asp
| | | | | BATTLE ESCALATES OVER HOMESCHOOLED CHILD SEIZED BY SWEDISH GOVERNMENT | | Posted by Diane on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 at 8:16am |  | The following is an article from the HomeSchool Legal Defense Association warning of what will happen in the U.S. if our government ratifies the UN Convention for the Trights of the Child.
Purcellville, VA—On June 25, attorneys with the Home School Legal Defense Association and Alliance Defense Fund filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights asking it to hear the case of a 7-year-old boy seized by Swedish authorities because his parents homeschool.
“We are gravely concerned about this case because of the threat it represents to other homeschooling families,” said Mike Donnelly, staff attorney for HSLDA and one of nearly 1,700 attorneys in the ADF alliance. “In response to our inquiries, Swedish authorities have cited the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child to explain and defend their actions. If the U.S. were to ever ratify this treaty, as the White House and some members of Congress desire, then this sort of thing could occur here,” he added.
Swedish authorities forcibly removed Domenic Johansson from his parents, Christer and Annie Johansson, in June 2009 from a plane they had boarded to move to Annie’s home country of India. The officials did not have a warrant nor have they charged the Johanssons with any crime. The officials seized the child because they believe homeschooling is an inappropriate way to raise a child and insist the government should raise Domenic instead. Social services authorities have placed Domenic in foster care as well as a government school and are only allowing Christer and Annie to visit their son for one hour every five weeks.
“Parents have the right and authority to make decisions regarding their children’s education without government interference,” said ADF Legal Counsel Roger Kiska, who is based in Europe. “A government trying to create a cookie-cutter child in its own image should not be allowed to violate this basic and fundamental human right. The refusal of Swedish authorities to respect that right has left us no choice but to take this case to the European Court of Human Rights.”
HSLDA and ADF attorneys decided to file Johansson v. Sweden with the ECHR when the Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden refused to review a lower court’s December 2009 ruling in Johansson v. Gotland Social Services that found that the government was within its rights to seize the child. The lower court cited minor post-seizure medical concerns with Domenic as well as the provably false charges that homeschoolers do not perform well academically and are not well socialized as reasons to uphold the apparently permanent seizure of young Domenic.
Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is a 27-year-old, 85,000 member non-profit organization and the preeminent national association advocating the legal right of parents to homeschool their children.
ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.
| | | | | Caution: Public School at Home Programs to Recruit Homeschoolers | | Posted by Diane on Wednesday, May 26, 2010 at 6:39am | The following article is taken from the HSLDA page and warns parents about the dangers of enrolling children in the public school-at-home programs. HSLDA does not offer protection of parents rights in these situations.
The governor’s recent signature on SB 738, giving state approval for “virtual school programs,” guarantees that public-school-at-home programs, under various names in different places, will soon ramp up their efforts to recruit homeschoolers.
Participation in these programs—full time or part time—will immediately turn your child into a public school student. Newly enacted Virginia Code § 22.1-212.27.A says, “Any student enrolled in any online course or virtual program offered by a local school division shall be enrolled in a public school….”
This means your child will be required to take the Virginia SOL tests. It means the program’s teachers cannot teach your child about God. It means that the free books they require you to use must not teach about God.
You will be told that the curriculum is wonderful. But pause to think a moment: They are offering the exact same curriculum to thousands of students. One curriculum can’t possibly be best for all of them!
Of course, they will tell you that you can “supplement.” But the demands of the mandatory curriculum may swallow up the time and energy of many a well-intentioned parent who told himself he would supplement.
In other states, public-school-at-home programs have hired recruiters who are well known local homeschool moms. The person who soon tries to talk you into giving up your freedom and joining one of these programs may actually be your best friend.
HSLDA membership services are not available with respect to a child enrolled full-time in a public-school-at-home program.
Homeschool students across the country are achieving outstanding academic results partly because their parents can educate them without public school restrictions and red tape. Your freedom to pick the right curriculum—and change it as necessary—is a key in helping your child do his best. Homeschool parents personally keep educational responsibility—rather than delegating it to a public school program—and the kids are the winners.
And if you want your child to grow up understanding the truth about God, one of the very best things you can do is make sure that your curriculum teaches your child the same truths that you are teaching.
 Education
| | | | | You heard it right ... class credit for keeping quiet! | | Posted by Diane on Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 10:29am | A high school in New Hampshire recently awarded credits toward graduation for students who participated in a national school-based observance for homosexual rights.
Officials at Bedford High School gave credit for a course called "Real World Learning" for students who remained silent all day long in class on the "Day of Silence" in a show of support for homosexuality. The move has stirred protests from parents who say they were not notified about the plan.
Kevin Smith, executive director of Cornerstone Action in New Hampshire, says school officials now claim that any group can be eligible for credit for attending civic meetings or participating in other political events. Smith believes school officials are merely trying to defuse public pressure.
"They certainly didn't promote that idea when they said they were going to give credit for the Day of Silence; they certainly weren't being very open at that point," he recalls. "I think it's only because they've now had pressure put on them that they're starting to whistle a new tune."
The New Hampshire activist says the newly announced policy will "open up a huge can of worms."
"Your going to have political ideologies from all across the spectrum now saying that they want credit for doing such and such during the school day -- and it really takes away from the learning environment," he laments. "It takes away from the activities and classes and the subjects that they should be focusing on --and now we're politicizing the classroom even more."
Smith believes politicizing issues, whether they be on the left or the right, have no place in the classroom.
Bill Bumpas - OneNewsNow - 4/29/2010 6:00:00 AM Education | | | |
|
About Me And Also ... Categories
|
Subscribe 
Print this
Permanent Link
E-mail a friend
Add a comment
View Archive
Top 
Authorized Log-In