“So, I want to recognize that your line of questioning is transphobic and it opens up trans people to violence by not recognizing them.”
Unlike Star Wars, there doesn’t appear to be an Obi-Wan Kenobi out there to settle these opposing forces at least for a time.
The quote above is stated in the first minute of the video above. The small portion, which included the quote, went viral on many media sources the other day and I can see why.
I won’t get into the logic of the statements made by the professor and it is worth noting that she never did answer the question put to her. It was something else that was more amazing.
How a few simple questions made the Senator “open up trans people to violence” is beyond my comprehension. If someone out there can explain it to me, please leave a comment below.
Our violent world is a thought on the minds of many these days. I think that statements like this from any source only make things worse. They certainly don’t help matters.
What do you think?
“So, I want to recognize that your line of questioning is transphobic and it opens up trans people to violence by not recognizing them.”
Why can’t I find this video anywhere else besides Facebook? There is a good reason the American people do not trust their government. I rarely post articles like this but these Senators are obviously being contacted by concerned citizens that are sickened by the size of the Government and intrusion into personal lives.
The fact that inflation is at the highest rate in 40 years means that we can’t just cavalierly continue squeezing the American public and future generations.
I have always thought that our financial problems are just a consequence of our spiritual problems.
They are having another debt limit vote today. Sometimes I think many of our “leaders” are determined to break us. Is it intentional? I don’t know but some think that the American people have no limit of resources to fund a government larger than we already have. I have news for those people…they are living in a different world than I.
In recent weeks there has been a surprising number of origin of life articles pasted to social media of all types. I tend to notice such things because I am interested in how we got here. One of these articles is seen every month or two and then, BOOM, a bunch of articles can hit at the same time. Some of these articles are written as if our modern scientists are close to figuring it all out.
One of the many articles that popped up lately is entitled, “Redo of a Famous Experiment on the Origins of Life Reveals Critical Detail Missed for Decades.” This article explains nothing new about the origin of life theory. It states:
“The prevailing theory now is that on a highly volatile early earth lightning struck mineral rich waters. And that the energy from lighting strikes turned those minerals into the building blocks of life: organic compounds like amino acids. Something we often refer to as the “primordial soup.”
It is the same thing I heard years ago when I was in college. The article describes the famous Miller-Urey experiment of 1952 and suggests “the experiment’s container played an underappreciated role. That perhaps it was also critical to the creation of organic building blocks inside their laboratory life soup.” The “perhaps” isn’t a surprise after reading article after article that doesn’t really seem to get us any closer to knowing the origin of life.
The article, published in the Scientific American a few days ago, is typical of these types of articles. A new and exciting discovery has been made that may perhaps change the course of science as we know it. The reality, however, is that we aren’t any closer to understanding how the primordial soup could have possibly produced a living cell.
In the past several years a scientist who knows a lot about the cell and its makeup has been attempting to educate the public about the problems associated with a simple cell originating in a primordial soup. In the following video, he makes the case that we are no closer to understanding the origin of life than we were in the 1952 experiment. Dr. Tour has made the statement that we may actually be further away from understanding the scientific origins of life because of new knowledge of the cell’s complexity among other things. This is a video that anyone interested in the subject should watch.
If anyone is interested in Dr. James Tour’s credentials, you can find them here.
Today, this was the top item on my Google phone app. It is similar to many of the articles that have been seen on major social media platforms lately.
It begins with “So here is the creation story as told by Science.” It continues with “In the beginning there was an ocean of energy.” At the end we find out that “Nearly 13.8 billion years after it all began we emerged blinking into the light.”
The video is visually striking and very creative. In the 3-minute piece there is no mention of God’s involvement in creation.
Contrast this effort with the first few verses in the Gospel of John:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.”
These brief explanations are surely something to chew on.
Both descriptions bring up many questions. Where did the ocean of energy come from in the beginning? If such long ages were involved, how can we narrow the time frame to our emergence after 13.8 billion years?
Many Christian theologians identify “the Word” in the Gospel verses as Jesus Christ. Was Jesus there at the beginning with God and was He involved in creation? If the “Word was with God and the Word was God” are there two Gods?
I am no scientist and I would be considered an average theologian at best. At the same time, I enjoy both science and theology. I am always glad to see someone like Dr. Tour come along and question the status quo. Not only does he appear to know what he is talking about, he is likeable. It is unfortunate that only two scientists who disagree with Dr. Tour have been willing to have a public discussion with him even though he has offered to discuss origins with anyone at his own expense.
While I’ve been typing, I see that another interesting science article has popped up. It brings up part of the problem in many of today’s articles dealing with science and theology.
This article is titled:
Anyone reading the title and neglecting to read the article might get the wrong idea. The same thing happens all of the time with articles about the study of the nature of God and religious belief (theology).
So, how do people figure out what they think about the origin of life?
I suppose it comes down to what one believes is most authoritative. In my case, I believe the Bible to be the greatest authority. I think that the Bible is “living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, even penetrating as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” Because of this belief, certainty comes from verses like this:
“And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” 1 John 5:20
I would hope and expect scientific articles to continue to be published just like I hope theological articles will never cease. Topics related to these two areas of study are important in so many ways. I am interested enough in the claims of some of these articles to read them and consider them. There are many claims made by one Man and his followers that are 2,000 years old. They are unique claims. They are claims that every human being should assess. If God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life, it should get the appropriate attention.
Here is another such article/video on the subject that popped up on my phone just hours ago. It popped up because I am subscribed to a certain YouTube channel. The introductory screen tells us that “This video was produced in collaboration with a team of 5 PhD scientists.” It has that and the comments about the video are mostly supportive. Even though this video is much more detailed than the “Redo” article, I am not knowledgeable enough of the subject to know how accurate it is. So, I do the same with it as I do with the “Redo of a Famous experiment on the origin of life…” article mentioned earlier in this post. It does not immediately become factual in my mind although I am curious enough to want to know what is being stated so that I can digest it along with other things I read and watch over time.
If you have any comments about the accuracy of this video, please share them with me. Also feel free to express your views on anything else I have written in this post.
Two New Convictions of Norway in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in cases concerning child protection (Barnevern) and a similar case from my own “backyard”November 28, 2021
The 12th and 13th cases in the past three years finding the Norwegian Child Welfare Services guilty of human rights offenses were decided on November 25th. If you would like to see the details of the cases and the statements of the Court, you can find them here and here.
If you would like to see all thirteen decisions and a previous one, you can find them here. I am thankful to Professor Marianne Skanland for compiling this list of cases.
As the number of such cases begin to pile up, it seems that the Norwegian Child Welfare services are oblivious to such proceedings. This response is inexcusable.
I was told by a case worker in Norway years ago that I shouldn’t be so concerned about Norway but should look to the problems within the American Child Protection Services. He was correct that we have similar problems in the U.S. and I have focused on them in more than one post. Here is one important article that focuses on promoters of forced adoption in the U.S. At the same time, American parents seem to have a better chance not to lose their children forever. There is no question we have problems here that need resolution. In my neck of the woods, the CPS appears to attempt reunification of parents with their children in a good percentage of cases. I know that things are not as good in many places in the U.S. And we have had our own strange cases here in Garland County.
One of the strangest Norway style events here involved the Stanley family in January of 2015. You can click on this sentence, taken from one of the reports of the incident, to see the entire story:
“Suddenly the door opened … and there were six or eight of them, came in the door, marched in there,” Hal showed. “Fully armed Sheriff’s and people stood there and said we’re taking the children for 72 hours.”
All of the Stanley children were rightfully returned to the parents eventually.
Here is a report and video from five months after the Stanley children were taken.
This is the video from the report:
What is happening in Norway garnered worldwide protests in 2016. The same types of incidents have created protests in rural Arkansas and in many other places in America. “Childnapping” is happening in the U.S. Sweden, Denmark, and England are just a few of the other countries where this problem has gotten very real to parents who never suspected that their children would be taken from them. This is a “first world” problem that many in Norway argue has become an industry. Thus, the focus on Norway which has sociologists that argue that half of all parents are not able to care for their children as well as the government can.
An interesting new “front” on the war against human rights violations towards families is taking place in Poland. A group called Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture has taken an active role in several social questions, among them helping families against such injustices. It is a Polish Catholic organization and think tank. Not a fan of Catholic theology, I am a big fan of those trying to help others escape the long reach of certain governmental agencies that are in the business of wrecking families.
Ordo luris states in one of it’s publications that:
“…not only parents from Poland are asking for help from our lawyers, but also Poles from Germany, Norway and Great Britain, where the actions of oppressive child welfare offices lead to real tragedies. We cannot allow similar tragedies to take place in Poland as well.”
Here is one of the recent cases published by Ordo luris:
“Apart from co-creating pro-family law, it is equally important to provide comprehensive legal assistance to parents whose children are unjustly taken away. Recently, the quick reaction of Ordo Iuris lawyers led to the return of nine wrongly taken children to their mother, Mrs Ewa Bryła.
The children were placed in foster care, because the probation officer, after four months of supervision, arbitrarily stated that the mother was allegedly unable to raise them. The local Commune Social Welfare Center, which has been supporting the family for two years, did not agree with this opinion. The head of the center emphasized that during the long-term cooperation with the family, he had not noticed any gross irregularities that would authorize state authorities to take the children away from their mother. Its employees pointed out that the separation of the family was extremely harmful to the children and exposed them to breaking family ties with their mother, which are extremely strong.
Also, the doctor looking after the children did not say that they were neglected. On the other hand, the medical staff ensured that minors were guaranteed appropriate care. The local police pointed out that there were no interventions at Ewa’s house, no Blue Card procedure was initiated, and there was no addiction problem. In the family, there was only a problem with meeting the children’s compulsory schooling. However, Ewa, in cooperation with the family assistant and social workers, worked to overcome the emerging difficulties. The mother provided her children with the right conditions, encouraged them to learn, helped with homework and taught them good behavior.“
The goal here is to keep people apprised of the issue to a degree that puts this subject beyond the suspicion that this is some conspiracy theory. The problem is real. It does not get the coverage it should because of all of the other societal problems facing us in our times.
Yes, you read the title correctly. Scottish authorities have officially gone insane. While listening to my favorite Scottish/American pastor’s sermon today, he mentioned this. It’s no wonder his mood seemed somber. I had to recheck his facts and, surely enough, it is true. Several different publications have reported the news. You can read one of the sources here.
“It was disclosed that any pupil who decides they want to switch gender must be supported and listened to in school following the Scottish Government’s advice.
The guidance applies in primary schools, where the youngest children are only four or five, because ‘recognition and development of gender identity can occur at a young age’.
It also tells teachers not to question a child who says they want to transition to live as a boy or a girl – and instead ask for their new name and pronouns.”
Here is the report entitled Supporting Transgender Pupils In Schools, Guidance for Scottish Schools.
So, one European country will allow a pre-schooler to make a personal gender determination and another (Norway) won’t allow a child as old as 17 to have any say on whether he/she will be allowed to live with a parent or not. These inhumane and bizarre policies are now part of life in two countries with Christian legacies.
People who are creating these types of protocols are not considering the authority of God. Anyone familiar with and in the slightest agreement with Biblical statements regarding the treatment of children would recoil at such codes.
There is not a lick of wisdom in these types of rulings. Yet, Christians know where wisdom comes from:
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” -Proverbs 9:10
The lack of even a semblance of wisdom in this decision screams how spiritually bankrupt the originators of things like this are. This headline is another indication of how far nations once influenced by Biblical Christianity have fallen.
May God have mercy on us.
First I will share the greatest commandment and then I will share how I think archeology can relate to it.
34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him: 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and foremost commandment.” 39 -Matthew 22:34-39
Jesus said that we are not only to love God with all our heart and soul, but with ALL OUR MIND. Does it sound like He wanted us to turn off our minds when we consider spiritual things? No, it sounds like using our minds is one of the most important things. As we study the Bible, are we allowed to use our intellect to help us learn? It certainly sounds like it. Not only are we allowed to use our minds, we are supposed to. I believe the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit and, as we read it, the Holy Spirit can help us to understand things we might not understand otherwise. At the same time, we are to use the mind that God has given us to search the scriptures like those whom Paul called “noble-minded” in the city of Berea: “for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11)
I read many views on this verse particularly noting the different ideas about what the mind represents. The one I liked the most stated: “Our mind is the faculty of understanding, what enables us to imagine and think and reason.”
Archeology is “the study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of artifacts and other physical remains.” Any “study” involves thinking and reasoning. Obviously, thinking and reasoning is done with our minds, thus, the connection between the greatest commandment and archeology. As the Bible is a historical book which discusses the past, present, and future, it is subject to archeological review as much as any other book if not more so because of its claims.
In High School, I cut my teeth on a book titled “Evidence that demands a Verdict, Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith” by Josh McDowell. Few titles better describe a book and there is a chapter in the book that is called “The Reliability of the Bible” that has a part called “Confirmation by Archaeology.” It is a relatively short portion of the book but one of the quotes found there is by Millar Burroughs, American biblical scholar, a leading authority on the Dead Sea scrolls and professor emeritus at Yale Divinity School:
“On the whole…archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record.”
I understand that much of the content of the Bible is questioned in our day including the historic accuracy that it contains. I would be the last person, at this time, to try and explain that we have evidences for everything in scripture. However, I think archaeology is an interesting area where we continue to learn as discoveries are made.
The Associates for Biblical Research track archeological finds that relate to the Bible. Below, I have featured several of the many videos they have made of exciting archeological finds for Christian believers. There is no question that there is disagreement on the intersection of the Bible and archaeology. Here is an article that proves this. It must be noted, however, that Christians have reasonable cause to be excited by the thousands of tangible finds that seem to validate the historicity of the Bible.
Here is the video that inspired this post:
Since I have made the case that the Christian is to use his/her mind, other Bible verses must be mentioned. The Bible puts our intelligence in perspective:
34 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? -Romans 11
16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? -1 Corinthians 2
And then there is these verses (two of the most recognized verses of scripture):
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
And do not lean on your own understanding.
6 In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He will make your paths straight.
There will be times when things are not so easy to understand: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I also have been fully known (1 Cor. 13:12).
So, no matter how much we study, and we should wish to be like the “noble-minded” Bereans, we will only know things in part in this life. That is a given. When these times occur, the verses from Proverbs 3 instruct us.
May God bless your study of His Word.
Recent articles about the final video above:
Israeli Archaeologists Find Biblical Name ‘Jerubbaal’ Inked on Pot From Judges Era
Yesterday, in a “discussion” online with a young friend who asked what I thought about the “Equality Act, he informed me that it was a very bad thing. Thankful that a person of his age could see the danger of such an Act, this morning has been spent reading articles about the results of the passing of such legislation. Being aware of the Act for some time, it was important to read the text of H.R. 5 too. It sounds as bad as it has been portrayed by many.
Twenty years ago, the idea that same-sex marriage would be legalized in America seemed almost impossible. That the House of Representatives’ majority vote has passed H.R. 5 on to the Senate is another indicator of how far Christian ethics in America have eroded. Many seem to think that this dark legislation will not pass in the Senate. Those who are praying against the opening of yet another of “Pandora’s boxes” (a source of endless complications) are hoping these folks are correct about how the Senate will rule. The fact that we are at this point, with a president who can’t wait to sign the legislation into law, indicates where we are as a nation.
After having read several articles on the topic, Michael P. Orsi’s in the Washington Times made an impression and his title is the title of this post. Below is the beginning of that article with a link to the remainder of it, a link to the text of H.R. 5, and links to a few other related articles.
This is an important issue.
Say no to the evil, gender politics of the ‘Equality Act’
House Resolution 5 bill covers ‘gender-related identity regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth’
– – Wednesday, February 24, 2021
The famous story of Jesus being tempted in the desert makes a point that’s relevant to our current politics, that evil always comes packaged as good, and carries a heavy price.
Satan points out to Jesus how easy it would be to use his special powers to relieve hunger. “Just turn these rocks into bread,” he urges.
Then he takes Jesus to the highest point of the temple, and suggests that he demonstrate his unique status by jumping off and letting angels catch him. Finally, Satan gets to the bottom line, offering Jesus dominion over all the world’s kingdoms, if only he’ll bow down and become a devil worshipper.
Jesus will have none of it.
Unfortunately, we humans aren’t as clear-seeing as the Lord. All too often we’re susceptible to evil ideas when they come wrapped in appealing images and comforting words. Such a deceptive proposal is House Resolution 5, a truly insidious piece of legislation known as the “Equality Act.”
This bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect individuals from discrimination not only on the basis of race, color, religion and sex, but “sexual orientation and gender identity.”
The name “Equality Act” is a triumph of ideological packaging. Who could possibly be against “equality?”
Here is the first day of Senate hearings on HR 5 (March 17, 2021):
HR 5 has become S.393
It is now May 19th, 2021, two months after the 1st and only Senate hearing (the video above) thus far on the Equality Act. After two months of no news I checked congress.gov. Seeing nothing new there I called my Senator’s office (Tom Cotton) and found out that nothing more has been done regarding this bill. In the Senate it is tagged as S.393. For those of you following this bill I recommend Googling “S.393” occasionally to try and find the latest. All news outlets should be publicizing any upcoming Senate vote.
By Marianne Haslev Skånland
23 November 2020
Updated 25 November 2020
In their political work, Bill and Hillary Clinton advocated early forced adoption of children having been taken into care by the social services and placed in foster homes. The ‘Adoption and Safe Families Act’ was passed in 1997, under Bill Clinton as president, promoting forced adopting away from their biological parents of foster children after only 15 months separated from their parents, if social workers (the CPS – child protective services) did not consider the parents to have ‘improved’ by then.
1. The attitude of social ‘experts’: Parents are unimportant
Pushing through forced adoptions in this activistic way did not come out of the blue. Propaganda idealizing the power of social workers seems to have been strengthened under Bill Clinton’s presidency. His wife Hillary Clinton was very active with her view that ‘it takes a whole village to raise a child’, presented also in a book:
“In it, Clinton presents her vision for the children of America. She focuses on the impact individuals and groups outside the family have, for better or worse, on a child’s well-being, and advocates a society which meets all of a child’s needs. The book was written with uncredited ghostwriter Barbara Feinman.”
It Takes a Village
Wikipedia, last edited 14 May 2020.
Although she is said to have warned against too much interference by social service agencies into family life, I also remember that Hillary Clinton has in some context straight out agitated in favour of every American family being obliged to accept a visit (inspection) by a social worker twice a year.
An American article from 2019 gives an account of the ideology that the ‘professionals’ know best and take best care of children, the aim being to raise them to be the kind of citizens many believe is ideal:
“The ideology of the Clinton bureaucrats who worked on the law might explain its focus.
“What happens to children depends not only on what happens in the homes, but what happens in the outside world,” Mary Jo Bane, who served as the Clinton administration Department of Health and Human Services’ assistant secretary of children and families, said in a 1977 interview.
“We really don’t know how to raise children. If we want to talk about equality of opportunity for children, then the fact that children are raised in families means there’s no equality. It’s a dilemma. In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.””
Clinton-Era Law Has Distorted Child Protective Services, Parents Say. Law Passed by Trump seeks to reform a system in crisis
The Epoch Times, 25 September 2019
2. What to do about the unsuccessful foster home industry
The CPS business of foster homes in America is large, but like elsewhere it is no success. The CPS in the USA is frequently said to be ‘a system in crisis’ or ‘a broken system’ and to have been so for a long time. This is apparent from the outcome of CPS actions, with results far from the ideal imagined by well-meaning psycho-social theorists.
However, the idea under Clinton was that early cutting off of every bond between child and parents through adoption of the child by others would bring to an end the unfortunate sides of foster home existence. Social services in the USA were keen to support the legislative initiative and the number of children forcibly adopted away shot up:
Clinton Hails Illinois For Adoption Record
Chicago Tribune, 24 September 1999
U.S. Rewards State Adoption Efforts
Chicago Tribune, 24 September 1999
Then the adoption train was made to halt for a moment, as the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois found the law to be unconstitutional:
Foster custody law is voided
Chicago Tribune, 21 September 2001
Nevertheless, the adoption-enthusiasts found a way around this:
“DCFS and the courts made sure to have on hand people who could make on-the-spot assessments of parents’ problems and work with “recovery coaches”.
And the adoptions continued:
Heeding the call to adopt
Chicago Tribune, 20 October 2003
The programmatic believers in the 1997 law recognised that foster home arrangements are usually not very good for children, and certainly not in the long run. Whether wiping out the biological family is a cure, is nevertheless quite a question, in the light of the comprehensive evidence available about serious problems for all parties in a considerable number of cases, not only for the biological parents deprived of their children but also of the adopted children and actually of adoptive parents as well – not only in forced adoptions. (The little bibliography here can perhaps be a start for those not familiar with the facts already; it lists a few items out of a rich literature: Is biological kinship irrelevant for the life of human beings?.)
So the question is: Why do the ‘expert’ authorities, the CPS themselves, politicians who support the CPS, shut their eyes to these realities? They seem so firmly one-sided that the answer is probably that the system draws on other sources in addition to a wayward ideology of ‘the child’s best interest’. And indeed there are such additional sources and factors, such as the satisfaction drawn from power over others, that of belonging to a large set of benefactors to society, the security of being approved by leading authorities, and the large number of people involved in the sector financially.
3. Some ideological background
The favoured way of thinking behind the development in the Clinton era is found in other countries too. Trends in social work are rather international (The attitude of social professions involved in the child protection sector). In the area of forced adoption, cf the rather similar conditions in Britain to what has been taking place in the USA:
How social services are paid bonuses to snatch babies for adoption
Mail Online (Daily Mail), 31 January 2008
The child protection systems in Western countries operate on the basis of ideological, would-be scientific, psychological notions claiming that children are really better off when raised by or chiefly influenced by ‘ideal’ caretakers appointed by ‘experts’ and not by their faulty parents. A concomitant is that ousting the parents has supposedly little negative effect for the child.
The belief is essentially that all that matters in life from childhood to adult age, including feelings and ideas as well as behaviour, is formed more or less deterministically by the environment, primarily the social and material environment, and can therefore be modified at will by those in power dictating how a child’s environment is to be formed and restricted. A companion argument holds that assuming biology to be a cause of behaviour and of mental life is unscientific. A lot of evidence exists showing that this idea of biology and of science is untenable. It has, however, been widely held, in several waves of social thinking at least in the last 300 years. But presumably, the idea that the state is better suited to bring up children than parents are, must have had some currency in Europe ever since the time of Plato’s The Republic (authored around 375 BC, i.e about 2400 years ago).
Such a philosophy, simplifying the view (if not the actual understanding) of life and individuals, has of course been prominent in communist and socialist thinking, albeit with fluctuating strength in different periods, as the more extreme consequences turned out to be impracticable. But practically the same ideas are also found in politically quite conservative circles.
The line of reasoning about society has been observed in England and France at least from the Age of Enlightenment, the time before and around the French revolution, cf H.N. Brailsford (1913): Shelley, Godwin and their circle (Oxford University Press) (cf here, here and here). An important new surge in favour of environment at the expense of and even counter to biology can be found around 1900, starting in America particularly in psychology and social anthropology, cf How Norwegian experts came to reject biological kinship as relevant in child welfare policy. It has through the 1900s been, and still is, evident in much of linguistics and language teaching, even from leading linguists who claim to be ‘mentalists’ and ‘innate-ists’.
As clear an exposition as any of the materialistic, environmental-deterministic ideology regarding ‘the best interest of the child’ can be found in a recommendation to the Norwegian parliament in 2012 to demote ‘the biological principle’ in legislation and practice concerning children, especially that relating to the CPS taking children into care and declaring the child-parent relationship permanently nullified:
This legislative proposal was no bombshell when it came; rather it represented the formalization of trends in social and psychological ideology consciously spread and strengthened through propaganda over a long time. The lack of realization is evident – realization that there is something more, something other than learning and environmental influence at the basis of children’s impulse to be with their own parents. An American friend when reading the explanations of the Raundalen Committee was struck by the deliberate rejection of any belief of biological bonds having a natural cause. He wrote to me: “I read the names and titles of these committee members and I thought, ‘Just who do these people think they are?’” The answer is: They are mostly leading members of the official Norwegian establishment of state authorized ‘child experts’, and with this authorization they believe they are the ones who know best and can diagnose and evaluate everything.
Another authority in Norway is the leader of the state’s professional committee for adoptions. Private adoptions are not allowed in Norway, so this committee holds great powers, and its leader is listened to with respect by makers of legislation. In the 1990s the leader was psychologist Karen Hassel. In a tv interview in 2001 she emphasized that adoptive relationships were very problematic indeed, often with years of rejection of the adoptive parents by the adopted child. About 4 months later she testified in court in a forced adoption case, and managed to say the opposite: that this adoption was no trouble at all and strongly to be recommended, without explaining the relationship between that particular adoption and those she had warned about on tv.
The situation here in Norway, then, is perhaps much the same as I find dominating in the policies of the Clintons in the USA, just more one-sidedly accepted in Norway? No one reading the Raundalen committee’s recommendations needs to be surprised at the impossibility of debating with the members of the Committee or their supporters. Nor is it surprising that the development since 2012 has been characterized by a continued belief within the CPS that their breaking up of families is in children’s best interest, likewise that the county welfare boards (making the initial approvals of taking children into care) and the courts support them, to the despair of the very large majority of parents and children in the hands of the CPS.
4. The result of the Clinton administration’s ‘Adoption and Safe Families Act’
So a factor is money. As the Chicago Tribune articles as well as the one in The Epoch Times show, Clinton’s law created special ‘financial incentives’ to agencies for each child adopted out of foster care. There was apparently no reason then to stop when the children in care had been adopted away. On the contrary, there was reason for the CPS to go ahead and take new children into foster care, to be the next to be adopted away, with a generous government check as a reward.
In other words, the number of children taken into care did not go down as a result of the Clinton initiative, quite the contrary, the 1997 law “sparking a lucrative government-run business of child removal” (Clinton-Era Law Has Distorted …).
Keeping a child away from its parents for 15 months, with the kind of laws and rules the CPS possess, is child’s play. There is evidence in the USA as in other countries that social work establishments’ own actions and what they consider necessary changes in the lives of parents tend to take up a very long time, if demanded changes are even so concrete and sensible that parents can comply with them in the real world. The demands of the CPS can also make a family’s practical life impossible. CPS ‘diagnoses’ on the spot and ‘recovery coaches’ are unlikely to compensate for a child’s loss of its family, especially when surrounded by professionals who have no notion of the loss of family being a fundamental problem.
Let alone that far from every removal of a child from its parents is responsible and necessary from the start. The less real reason there has been for taking a child into care, the more the CPS will make demands that do not really help the child, and will resist letting go, since that would take away their power and tend to expose their actions from the beginning to have been unjustified. So once a child is taken into public care, it tends to stay in the system and be a factor supporting the CPS’s demands for more resources.
A clear forerunner to the adoption push of the Clintons is found in action taken by e.g Walter Mondale, who championed the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act in 1974. The following account of aspects of the wave in child protection ideas of the last 50 years can be found in Mark Pendergrast’s Victims of memory. Incest Accusations and Shattered Lives (the quotation is from the first edition, of 1995, pp 359-60):
“As a result of increased awareness of the true horrors of child abuse, Walter Mondale championed the passage of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act in 1974. This landmark legislation offered matching federal funds to states which passed their own laws mandating that doctors, psychologists, police officers, teachers, nurses, and other professionals report any suspected child abuse to the appropriate child protection agency. The act offered anonymity and immunity from prosecution to anyone reporting child abuse. Those who failed to report suspected abuse faced fines or prison sentences.(2) (see footnote)
The legislation has produced a self-sustaining bureaucracy of social workers, mental health experts, and police officers who specialize in rooting out sex abuse. The more cases they find, the more funds they receive, and the more vital their jobs appear. The result? Beyond question, many cases of actual abuse have been brought to light. But tragically, the legislation has also encouraged false accusations that have ruined the lives of innocent people. A network of self-righteous True Believers has blanketed America, eager to find offenses, even in cases where little or no evidence exists. A rumour or malicious allegation is enough to start the wheels rolling. Often, children are taken away from parents without notice, and the accused are arrested without ever being questioned.(3) (see footnote)
So the procedure was tried out in the 1970s, with a result that cannot be called anything but dismal for large numbers of children. This was known and understood in 1995, when Pendergrast wrote his book, and he surely cannot have been the only clear-eyed individual. Nevertheless, the Clinton administration went ahead with the same set-up of rewarding the social sector for dramatic early breaking of family bonds.
The action taken by the Trump administration, as described by The Epoch Times, seems to have hit the CPS effectively by clamping down on the money paid out to the CPS for breaking up families – viz on the very point the CPS is probably most keen to protect: “President Donald Trump’s Family First Prevention Services Act—which he passed by attaching it to a February 2018 spending bill”. With Joe Biden most likely heading for the White House, a real concern for American families targeted by the CPS will probably be whether his administration will revert to the Clintons’ idea of children and their needs. Policies regarding the taking of children into care and what happens to them are not usually a major political concern to the general population in a country, but for those who are hit by destructive CPS actions it is different – being forcibly separated from their family is a fundamental tragedy in the core of their hearts and their lives.
5. A different understanding of the needs of children
Scientific studies show that not foster care, not adoption, but a third option is far superior to them, even when the biological family is far from ideal.
THE EVIDENCE IS IN
Foster Care vs. Keeping Families Together: The Definitive Studies
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, September 2015
Rethinking foster care: Molly McGrath Tierney at TEDxBaltimore 2014
TEDx Talks, on youtube, 27 February 2014
Literature about it has appeared in most countries. Also well-known: Although adoption as well as foster care are realized to be problematic, there is no will in social service circles to go to the core of what is wrong; instead they want to keep on doing variants of the same, and calling for ‘more research’. Much the same goes for the people researching these topics; they are themselves perhaps close to the ones who would be out of a job or would have to re-train completely if social services for children were re-cast. At the same time the amount of lying, in case work and in the courts, on the part of the social services in countries practicing these ideas of children’s needs, is striking, and is in itself a symptom of a system and an ideology failing deeply.
There have over the years been plenty of studies in the USA as well as in Europe showing most of what we need to know. There have also been many individuals and NGOs in the USA whose information has reached us here in Europe, as they have carried out excellent documentation and have published on the internet and elsewhere about abuses by the social services against families. An example is Fight CPS: Child Protective Services-CPS-False Accusations, which has been running for several decades, under Linda Martin’s well-informed leadership. It cannot be emphasized often enough how important information and the freedom of expression are in the work to combat a CPS system with unwarranted power.
Local, political initiatives to turn things the right way are certainly also found. Nancy Schafer, a senator in Georgia, did not shy away:
Nancy Schafer exposes the EVIL CPS
Constitution Man, on youtube, 14 April 2009
Chris Reimers in Arkansas wrote this about an initiative to reunite children with their parents which had been partly successful (cf comments to Natalya Shutakova, Another Mother Tormented by the Norwegian “Child Welfare Services” (Barnevernet)):
“a local politician has recently been able to get legislation passed in our state assembly that would help situations like Natalya’s to be avoided.”
Here is how:
“….. In the case of the local politician I’ve mentioned, it took three things:
1) People who were not afraid to tell their stories to the man who represented them in Little Rock, and
2) A man (in this case State Senator Alan Clark) who was willing to listen to them, take them seriously, and craft legislation that would uphold parental rights in certain cases. There were two new laws crafted, and only one of the two passed into law. Still, progress was made.
3) It took a group of lawmakers who would pass such a law.
It seems a minority of American representatives are willing to spend so much time on issues like these but there are some. It also seems like Norway would get stopped, in almost all cases, by the second and third requirements listed.”
The footnotes in Pendergrast’s book are:
Gardner,”Modern Witch Hunt,” Wall Street Journal; Coleman, “False Allegations of Sexual Abuse,” p. 15-16.
Benedek, “Proglems in Validating.” For general books on the child abuse industry, see Wexler, “Wounded Innocents; Pride, Child Abuse Industry; Tong, Don’t Blame ME.
The references are given in the bibliography as:
Gardner, Richard A., “Modern Witch Hunt – Child Abuse Charges,” Wall Street Journal, Feb. 22, 1993
Coleman, Lee and Patrick E. Clancy, “False Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse,” Criminal Justice, Fall 1990, p. 14-20, 43-47
Benedek, Elissa P. and Diane H. Schetky, “Problems in Validating Allegations of Sexual Abuse”, Journal of the Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (1987), v. 26, p. 912-915
Wexler, Richard. Wounded Innocents: The Real Victims of the War Against Child Abuse. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1990.
Pride, Mary. The Child Abuse Industry. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1986.
Tong, Dean. Don’t Blame ME, Daddy: False Accusations of Child Sexual Abuse. Norfolk, VA: Hampton Roads Pub, 1992.
Foster-children as lucrative business
MHS’s home page, February 2005 / 25 January 2014
– : Child prisons? In Sweden?
MHS’s home page, 1995, 1998, 2006, 28 December 2018
– : Norway and Sweden – where inhuman rights prevail
MHS’s home page, 7 May 2012 / 11 November 2017
Senators want to see Children and Youth Services reform
Fox56, 27 March 2018
Breaking up families in the name of child protection
Sunday Guardian, 13 October 2018
Do criminals have more rights than parents in Tennessee?
News Channel 9 (Fox 17 News), 14 November 2017
Marianne Haslev Skånland:
Separating children from their parents – is Norway better than the USA?
MHS’s home page, 16 July 2018
– : Demonstrations abroad against Norwegian child protection (CPS) – Barnevernet
MHS’s home page, 8 – 10 January 2016
– : Canadian documentary about child protection
MHS’s home page, 11 September 2013
– : The Council of Europe with a critical report on European child protection systems
MHS’s home page, 4 July 2018
Hemming threatens to name social workers in Parliament
Liberal Democrat Voice (UK), 7 January 2007
Rock hard criticism of Norwegian child protection from the president of the Czech Republic
MHS’s home page, 10 February, 2015
Article series about child protection published in Sunday Guardian in India
Series overview with links
MHS’s home page, 17 December 2017 –
Family must come first
MHS’s home page, 14 February 2013 / 17 October 2015
– : Understanding and Responding to Child Confiscation by Social Service Agencies
MHS’s home page, 9 May 2012 / 20 September 2017
Octavian D. Curpas:
With Barnevernet, Norway is going South
MHS’s home page, 1 September 2016
The children of the state – The Norwegian child protection agency, Barnevernet, has created a society of fear
MHS’s home page, 27 November 2017
Flight, exile and taking chances
MHS’s home page, 11 November 2020
Here is a brief history leading to the current state of affairs in Hong Kong:
1842 Hong Kong became a colony of the British Empire at the end of the First Opium War.
1898 After the Second Opium War, British influence was further extended when Britain obtained a 99-year lease of Hong Kong and New Territories.
1949 The Communist Party took control of mainland China.
1984 British Diplomatic negotiations with China resulted in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, in which the United Kingdom agreed to transfer the colony in 1997 and China would guarantee Hong Kong’s economic and political systems for 50 years after the transfer.
1987-1997 The impending transfer triggered a wave of mass emigration as residents feared an erosion of civil rights, the rule of law, and quality of life. Over half a million people left the territory during the peak migration period, from 1987 to 1996 before Hong Kong was transferred to China.
1997 (July 1) With the end of the 99-year U.K. lease, The whole territory was transferred to China after 156 years of British rule. “One country, two systems” became a constitutional principle of the People’s Republic of China describing the governance of Hong Kong (and other “new” territories).
2003 An attempt to introduce anti-subversion legislation (referred to as Article 23) drew fierce criticism by those in Hong Kong who were concerned about losing freedoms. After 500,000 people protested on July 1 to oppose it, the bill did not have enough support to pass and was suspended indefinitely.
2016 Protests resulted from Beijing’s ruling in August that voters would only be able to vote for their chief executive in 2017 from a list of pre-approved candidates. (Timeline of events…Link)
2019 In April, an extradition bill triggered the first protest of many. It would have allowed for criminal suspects to be extradited to mainland China under certain circumstances. These protests continued throughout the year possibly becoming the largest-scale political protest movement in Hong Kong history with organizers claiming to have attracted more than one million Hong Kong residents. (The Hong Kong protests explained in 100 and 500 words…Link)
2020, May 21 The Chinese Government proposed a new law on national security regulations that may be enacted in Hong Kong under the provisions of Annex III of its Basic law. It may set up the legal framework to prevent and punish subversion, terrorism, separatism and foreign interference.
Here is a description of the current events in Hong Kong by someone who lives there:
“The Chinese government is ending the ‘one country, two systems’ arrangement in Hong Kong. This idea is guaranteed by the Sino-British Joint Declaration. It is a legal agreement submitted to the United Nations. ‘One country, two systems’ means that Hong Kong maintains its autonomy (self-determination) except in diplomatic and military affairs. The Chinese government has NO RIGHT to involve itself in any part of Hong Kong’s self administrating affairs, including the law. (This is clearly stated in the BASIC LAW of Hong Kong…Link) The basic law, is a ‘constitution’ for Hong Kong. It states said that laws in mainland China cannot be applied in Hong Kong directly.
“Now, this new national security regulation legislation will bypass and override the basic law (as well as the legislative council in HK), and will apply mainland China’s law to Hong Kong directly. What does it mean? It means that China breaks its promise that it will not intervene in Hong Kong’s affairs (promised in Sino-British Joint Declaration). It means that the ‘one country, two system’ arrangement will become ‘one country one system.’ It means that the Chinese government will directly rule Hong Kong, in effect, stealing Hong Kong’s sovereignty. It is the same thing that the Chinese government did in Tibet. The Chinese invaded Tibet in 1950 and allowed for an autonomous administration led by the Dalai Lama. The Chinese government broke its promises and the 14th Dalai Lama had to flee the country to escape. What happened in Tibet is happening in HK right now. It is the same thing.”
2020, May 28 China’s legislature has approved a proposal to impose a highly contentious national security law in Hong Kong, in an unprecedented move that critics say threatens fundamental political freedoms and civil liberties in the semi-autonomous territory. The legislative process of writing this law will take some time and only then will it be known what the written specifics are.
2020, June 3 (TODAY)(English starts at 20 seconds.)
Predictably, the people of Hong Kong are back in the streets en masse. In the video above, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (a pawn of Beijing), says that the new law must be passed and states:
“The International community and some of the foreign governments have been adopting blatant double standards…(The U.S. and U.K. are mentioned)…why should they object, resist, or even condemn and take the sanctions against Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China?”
The U.S. and United Kingdom on Friday urged the U.N. Security Council to take action against China’s crackdown on freedoms in Hong Kong — after China initially stopped the matter being discussed by the body…(Link)
Chief Executive Lam’s statement about “blatant double standards” appears to be directed at the U.S. because of the George Floyd Protests (timeline link). Some might think that the events in the U.S. are tied to some sort of communist takeover like the attempt occurring in Hong Kong. Just like the good protesters in Hong Kong (we are not talking about sinful looters now) most of the protesting occurring in the U.S. is nothing like the socialist effort in Hong Kong. The evidence of communist propaganda is evident for all to see.
The Future of Hong Kong
Apart from a miracle, this legislation will be written. The people of Hong Kong are very resourceful. Many facts about the success of the people of Hong Kong could be stated. One, in particular, summarizes the community there well. The last List of countries by Human Development Index (Link) has Hong Kong as 4th on its list. A country that is in the top ten in several worldwide statistics has the Chinese communist government foaming at the mouth.
So, how much credibility with the world will the Chinese be willing to sacrifice in order to “control” the people of Hong Kong? Hong Kong is not North Korea. We will find out what happens in Hong Kong. If the Chinese show themselves to be as tyrannical with the people of Hong Kong as they have been with people of different religions in their own country (Christians and Muslims in particular) the world will know. Will the world care? I know that Christians will care. Please pray for the people of Hong Kong. Ask God to allow them to keep their beloved freedoms. Ask God to help their leaders to have wisdom. And while you are at it, please pray for the people of China.
I would like to thank my Christian friend in Hong Kong for keeping me up to date on the things happening in his country.
According to Open Doors, here is the situation in China:
Persecution Type: Communist and post-communist oppression
Persecution Level: Very High
Main Religion: Atheism
Government: Communist state
Leader: President Xi Jinping
Wikipedia “Hong Kong”,“Handover of Hong Kong”“New Territories”
RFA 自由亞洲粵語 (Mr. Trump’s recent comments on the situation)
Hong Kong Free Press
BBC “Hong Kong protests: Timeline of the occupation,” “The Hong Kong protests explained in 100 and 500 words”
South China Morning Post
Open Doors USA