Abortion| Fight the FOCA

Technorati Tags: Abortion,fight the FOCA,foca,religion,barbara boxer,petition,obama

As Christians around the world begin celebrations for the birth of Christ, please remember that all unborn children deserve the gift of life.

Whatever your religion or your opinion on women's rights, educate yourself about the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) and its affects on abortion in the U.S.

The Fight FOCA Petition

by United Families International

FOCA would eradicate state and federal laws that the majority of Americans support, such as:

• Bans on Partial Birth Abortion


• Requirements that women be given information about the risks of getting an abortion


• Only licensed physicians can perform abortions


• Parents must be informed and give consent to their minor daughter’s abortion

FOCA would erase these laws and prevent states from enacting similar protective measures in the future.

California Senator Barbara Boxer introduced The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) in 2004. To date, the Bill has not been signed in to law but if passed, it would override every piece of Pro-Life legislation that has been made on a local, state, or national level. Sen. Boxer herself said that this radical Pro-Abortion legislation would ”supercede any law, regulation or local ordinance that impinges on a woman’s right to choose.”

Last year Barack Obama told the now famously corrupt Pro-Abortion organization, Planned Parenthood, that the first thing he would do as president of the United States is sign FOCA into law. As the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. government are controlled by the party that traditionally supports abortion, FOCA may be close to becoming law.

As defenders of the unborn, we must do all we can to ensure that their rights are protected. The Pro-Life group, Americans United for Life has taken part in a project called FightFOCA.com. FightFOCA.com is a great resource for all Americans to educate themselves on FOCA and sign the Fight FOCA Petition. For 30 years, United Families International has been devoted to maintaining and strengthening the family as the fundamental unit of society. We have fought on all levels of government to support the sanctity of human life, including unborn children. We are happy to join with Americans United for Life and voice our opposition to abortion.

The Fight FOCA Petition:

I oppose the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), because:

• FOCA is a radical attempt to enshrine abortion-on-demand into American law;


• FOCA seeks to sweep aside existing, protective laws that I and the majority of Americans support;


• FOCA will prevent states from enacting protective measures in the future.

The FightFOCA petition will be sent to key Members of Congress upon the re-introduction of the Freedom of Choice Act in the 111th Congress, and to President-Elect Obama.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION

Send emails to your state congressmen.

Email this post to any family or friends who might be interested in the information.

Why Christmas Matters

Technorati Tags: Christmas,why christmas matters,bill o'reilly,winter soltice,religion,christianity,atheism,freedom of religion,freedom from religion,nativity

The sign above taken by Ann Althouse--see her post here (It's the same sign O'Reilly refers to in his commentary).

Kingfisher is not a regular viewer of Bill O'Reilly, but his recent essay on Christmas addresses some current issues with good insight. While some people during this season of light celebrate the birth of a God, and some celebrate a miracle of light and protection from a God, everyone--no matter their religion or non-religion--can celebrate peace and goodwill towards men. This shouldn't be a time for fighting.

Why Christmas Matters

by Bill O'Reilly

In 1870, President Grant signed a law making Christmas Day a federal holiday, a national day of celebration. Congress overwhelmingly voted to make that happen and Grant understood that this was not a trivial gesture. The nation remained deeply divided in the aftermath of the Civil War and the federal government was looking for ways to reunite the people. Since Christmas was loved by almost everyone, the national holiday became a symbol of healing and unity.

Now, America is divided again, this time over social behavior. Traditional Americans want to hold on to the beliefs and institutions that, they believe, have made the country great, while secular-progressives lobby for aggressive change—things like redefining marriage to include homosexuals and other redefinitions of tradition.

Thus, deep divisions are growing in America and, somewhat shockingly, Christmas is right in the middle of it.

A few years ago some retail companies ordered their employees not to say the words "Merry Christmas" because they might offend people who do not celebrate the national holiday. Of course, that was insane. These companies were marketing the gift-giving season that accompanies Christmas but were refusing to utter the word? Please.

After an exposition of this by me and some other media people, millions of Americans decided not to spend money in the offending quarters, and the banishment of Christmas quickly ceased. I guess money trumps offending people all day long.

This season there is another Christmas controversy, this one engineered by some atheists who want to display signs on public property if Christmas or Hanukkah symbols are present. So far, only Illinois, Wisconsin and Washington state have caved in to the atheists, but it is just a matter of time before the non-believers come to a state house near you.

The problem with the atheist displays in Washington and Wisconsin is that the message is hateful, an attack on religion rather than a positive message. In Madison, then-Governor Tommy Thompson allowed the anti-religious sign, but posted it far away from the Nativity scene and the Menorah.

But in Olympia, Governor Christine Gregoire, a secular-progressive politician, has allowed a sign in the capitol rotunda that says religion enslaves people, among other not-nice things, to be placed within a few feet of Jesus in the manger. And peace on earth to you, too, Governor.

Of course, Gregoire did not have to do that. The legal settlement in Washington clearly states that any holiday display must be appropriate and reflect the decorum of the state capitol building.

So, the atheist anti-religion sign could have easily been rejected as being inappropriate. If the non-believers want a seasonal display, make it a positive thing. Put a picture of Charles Darwin and Bill Maher up there with the words "These are our guys... happy Winter Solstice!"

But, no, the atheists have to attack the baby Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the Wise Men and whoever else dropped by the Bethlehem birthplace.

Atheists well understand that Christmas is the most visible display of religion in the world, and any diminishment of it is a good thing to militant secularists. But it is inconceivable that Ulysses S. Grant, believing he finally had a slam-dunk issue in which to unite a fractured country, could have foreseen the social civil war we have today.

Sadly, we are no longer one nation under God. But those of us who truly understand the spirit of Christmas, the simple message of good will toward all men, understand that Ulysses S. Grant was on to something. Christmas should be a time of peace and understanding. It's sad that we now have to defend that.

Original article here

Beetle Blogger did a post worth reading here

Prop 8 Blacklist| Fred Karger's Legacy

Technorati Tags: prop 8,blacklist,fred karger,hoehn,prop 8 donors,californians against hate,boycott,prop 8 boycott,a-1 self storage,el coyote,doug manchester

Fred Karger is the organizer of Californian's Against Hate. He organized the blacklisting of companies for private donations of its owners.

Thanks to Californians Against Hate, we already have a list with all the contact info of those businesses we need to support.

Please re-acquaint yourself with its heroes. The blacklist is still very much in force.

If you'd like to contact Fred Karger: Info@CaliforniansAgainstHate.com

----------------------------------

Prop 8 foes turn to 'blacklist' tactics

By William M Welch, USA TODAY

LOS ANGELES — After losing on Election Day, some supporters of gay marriage are using economic boycotts and Internet lists to focus ire on the financial backers of Proposition 8.

Some on the receiving end say the tactic amounts to a blacklist, a term that conjures memories of Hollywood's refusal to hire screenwriters and others identified as communists in the late 1940s and 1950s.

"I just hate being pigeonholed as a hate monger or bigot," says Robert Hoehn, who contributed $25,000 to the campaign for Prop 8, which amended California's Constitution to exclude same-sex marriage. "I have friends in the gay community, and I don't think any of them would say that."

Hoehn has seen protesters outside his Carlsbad, Calif., car dealerships, his name and business have appeared on websites publicizing donors, and he has received "the most vitriolic kinds of e-mails, letters and phone calls."

His discomfort is exactly what some have in mind.

"I want to make it a little hot for these people," says Fred Karger, a retired Los Angeles political consultant who started the group and website called Californians Against Hate.

Small as well as large donors have felt heat:

• El Coyote, a Mexican restaurant in Los Angeles since 1931, has seen fewer diners and been picketed over a $100 contribution by a manager and member of the owning family. Marjorie Christoffersen told The Los Angeles Times, "I've almost had a nervous breakdown."

• San Diego developer Doug Manchester, who donated $125,000 to put Prop 8 on the ballot, has seen a boycott against hotels he owns, including the Manchester Grand Hyatt on San Diego Bay. Manchester did not return calls seeking comment. Sonja Eddings Brown, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, which supports Prop 8, said Manchester's hotel "has lost several national conventions and conferences."

• A-1 Self Storage, with 30 locations across California, has also been targeted by Karger's group. Owner Terry Caster and family members donated $693,000.

Caster did not return calls but has a recording on his phone defending the contribution and Prop 8. "The homosexual community is trying to change something that has been practiced since the start of our great country," he says, referring to marriage. "I simply exercise my right to support that which I believe in."

Brown says she has received calls from small business owners in Hollywood and West Hollywood who have lost customers because of their donations. She said she has seen printed lists that name Hollywood studio employees who gave to the cause, an action that "replicates that feel" of blacklists of movie-industry figures who many in Hollywood to this day believe were prevented from earning a living because of their politics.

Some say blacklist is the wrong analogy.

Larry Gross, professor and director of the school of communication at the University of Southern California, said publicizing donors is a legitimate tactic. He says it is similar to the Montgomery, Ala., bus boycott of the 1960s in which blacks were protesting segregated seating.

"This is a matter of private citizens saying they don't want to patronize businesses that have worked against their interests," Gross said.

But Ron Prentice, executive director of the California Family Council, says it is wrong to compare supporters of traditional marriage to racists.

"I think the general public is recognizing intolerance" of the blacklist, he said.

Original article here

Christian U.K. Registrar Loses Right of Conscience on Same-Sex Civil Unions

Technorati Tags: Christian,Lillian Ladele,climate of fear,UK registrar,civil unions,religious freedom,freedom of religion,discrimination,religious discrimination,employment appeals tribunal

------------------------------------------------------------

Lilian Ladele is the U.K. registrar who refused to perform homosexual civil partnership ceremonies because of her Christian beliefs. To learn more about Lillian Ladele and her story go here

Christian U.K. Registrar Loses Right of Conscience on Same-Sex Civil Unions

by Kathleen Gilbert

LONDON, December 19, 2008 - London's Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a ruling that granted compensation to a U.K. registrar subjected to harassment and the potential loss of her job after refusing to conduct civil unions between same-sex couples.

The court ruled that Islington Council of north London had not unjustly discriminated against 47-year-old Lillian Ladele, who objected to involvement in the unions because of her Christian beliefs.

"The council were not taking disciplinary action against Ms Ladele for holding her religious beliefs," stated the EAT ruling. "They did so because she was refusing to carry out civil partnership ceremonies and this involved discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation."
Ladele brought her employer to court after she claimed she was bullied and treated as a "pariah" by her fellow employees because of her adherence to Christian beliefs on homosexuality. Ladele would not perform such ceremonies and instead arranged for other colleagues to handle them. Nonetheless, the Council accused her of gross misconduct and refused to consider her for promotion, eventually threatening to fire her if she did not conduct a homosexual union herself.
The Central London Employment Tribunal had unanimously agreed that Ladele's treatment amounted to religious discrimination and unlawful harassment. The Islington Council then took the case to the EAT, where they argued that Ladele's beliefs ought not interfere with her directive to provide equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation.

The EAT tribunal ruled in favor of the Council's interpretation, stating that the earlier tribunal had "erred in law" and there was no basis for concluding any discrimination against Ladele based on her religious beliefs had taken place.

“Let’s say I am an anarchist and I feel strongly that I want to go around blowing things up, but my employers object," EAT president Judge Patrick Elias told a tribunal hearing last week. "It may well be that anarchy is my genuinely held belief. But it does not mean that my employer’s decision not to allow me to [do so] is discriminating against that belief.”

Ladele plans to take her case to the Court of Appeal.

"Religious freedoms must be respected but not at the expense of upholding civil liberties for all," commented Sarah Ludford MEP, Liberal Democrat European justice & human rights spokeswoman, as reported by the U.K.'s homosexual news service PinkNews.com.

"But while the Labour government’s apparent indulgence of religiously-based prejudice could make it very difficult for lesbian and gay teachers to find work in faith schools, at least the Ladele case is an encouraging sign that UK courts will uphold the principle that religion cannot trump the right to equal treatment."

Ladele's lawyer Mark Jones said in a statement outside of court that Ladele "wants to make it clear that, whatever other commentators may have said, this case has never been an attempt to undermine the rights of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender communities.

"The evidence showed that Lillian performed all of her duties to the same high standard for the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender communities, as she did for everyone. This case has been about the shortfall between the principle of equal dignity and respect for different lifestyles and world views, and Islington Council's treatment of Lillian Ladele - conduct which the tribunal felt moved to describe as extraordinary and unreasonable."

Colin Hart, director of The Christian Institute, expressed disappointment at the ruling. "Gay rights are not the only rights," he said. "If this decision is allowed to stand it will help squeeze out Christians from the public sphere because of their religious beliefs on ethical issues." The Christian Institute is a non-denominational Christian lobby group that supported Ladele's case.
In the words of registrar Elizabeth Thatcher, Civil marriage registrars who face losing their jobs for living their Christian beliefs are slowly entering a "climate of fear" created by the U.K.'s increasingly aggressive laws favoring universal acceptance for homosexual behavior.

Read article here

Campbell Soup Company Promotes Gay Agenda

Campbell Soup Company promotes Gay Agenda

by pomegranate apple

    

In the December 2008 and January 2009 issues of The Advocate, the Campbell Soup Company bought two 2-page ads in order to promote their Swanson line of cooking broth. The Advocate is one of the largest homosexual magazines in the country. One of the full-page ads features a lesbian couple and their son. Two other men are featured, but the lesbian couple has an entire story on one column of the page. Their story ends with these words:

This holiday season, serve a special meal no matter the size and structure of your family. The secret is Swanson. 

     While Campbell Soup Company is successfully advertising to their intended audience, as a consumer, I am concerned. The women featured in the ad are lovely women. They are doing good things. They are successful. However, the best place for children is in a family with a mom and a dad. Two moms do not equal a mom and a dad. Swenson broth does not equal a mom and a dad.

 from the The Campbell Soup Company 2008 Coorporate Social Responsibility Report:

Our mission:

Together we will build the world's most extraordinary food company by nourishing people's lives everywhere, every day.

Consumers around the world are recognizing the importance of sound nutrition to their health and well-being, and those of their families and communities. 

The best, most "nourishing" families across the board are the in-tact, traditional married unit. It seems to me that an "extraordinary" company would try to advertise the healthiest situation for the community it serves.

from Campbell's Global Guidelines for Responsible Advertising:

We use very special care and consideration when advertising to children.

Campbell Soup Advertising Messages:

Show children in safe physical and social environments

If Campbell Soup is concerned for the welfare of children, then they should not be contributing to the normalization of same-gender couples with kids. The company has a social responsbility that extends beyond pleasing one group of potential customers. The ad profits from (and blatantly promotes) the gay agenda at the cost of the social/emotional/psychological health of society and its children.

View ad here
Email the president of the Campbell Soup Company here
Call the company to express your concern: 1-800-257-8443 & 1-800-442-7684 (Swenson Division)

Jerry Brown, AKA Fish-Out-Of-Water

by Pearl Diver

"A flip-flop, flippty-flip-flip-flop you don’t stop…" says a community commenter at Michelle Malkin's blog. The little ditty accurately describes the shenanigans taking place at the Attorney General's office.

Jerry Brown, CA Attorney General, came gallantly to the defense of the people's Prop 8 vote immediately following the November 4th elections, vowing to uphold the constitutional amendment against his own personal beliefs. Now, however, in a perhaps-not-so-surprising turn of events, Brown has renounced his supportive position and fallen in with gay rights activists' "rainbow-love-change-civil rights-freedom" mantra, claiming that the amendment was "inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty." RIP, Jerry Brown, RIP.

Most outrageous is this quote from Brown himself that claims his change of heart was brought about by, "further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution." It is my humble opinion that the astute and capable Jerry Brown, would undoubtedly already be quite versed in Proposition 8 and every aspect of its Constitutional repercussions; he is the Attorney General, after all.

Pearl opines:

How to win a 2010 governor's chair? Jump ship on Proposition 8 in order to win popularity with the up-and-coming, "enlightened and progressive," young CA voter pool.

But really, can we really blame JB for being more afraid of the gay rights activists' reactions should Prop 8 be upheld than the traditional marriage supporters' reactions should Prop 8 be overturned? Hm? The answer is no, not if you've been following the blazing trail of GRA hate visible from outer space.

On a more positive note, joining the Yes on 8 legal defense team is the esteemed Kenneth Starr, Dean of Pepperdine University Law School, former US Court of Appeals Judge, DC Circuit, and former US Solicitor General who has argued 25 cases before the Supreme Court.

Hate for Hate's Sake

by Beetle Blogger

Marriot Hotel photo by José Carlos Cortizo Pérez

At Last—The Truth.

First they came after those who donated big to prop 8.  Then they came after the ones who donated a hundred dollars or less.  Now they’re coming after people who didn’t donate at all.

Is it principle or hate at the core of the boycotts?  Comments I’ve heard have couched all kinds of behavior in the comfy blanket of victimhood.  Everyone is excused from unconscionable behavior when they feel they’ve been wronged, right?

What if the target of the hate has done nothing?  Does it matter?  Or is the guise of victimhood just another excuse for the free exercise of blind fury?

Bill Marriott and his family own the Marriott Hotel chain.  They have come under fire from gay activists recently, not because of something they’ve done, but because of their religious affiliation.  What is their crime?  Bill Marriott and his family are Mormon, and they refuse to state their unequivocal support for the gay marriage movement.

See these quotes from the Huffington Post’s Marc Gunther on the boycott of Marriot Hotels:

“… why go after Marriott? According to my friend Bob Witeck, who runs a consulting firm called Witeck-Combs that specializes in gay issues and advises Marriott, neither Bill Marriott nor members of his immediate family donated to the campaign on behalf of Prop 8. What’s more (and this is undisputed), Marriott as an employer has an exemplary record around diversity in general and LGBT employees in particular. “

“… it would appear that the Marriott Corp. is under fire only because the family belongs to the Mormon church. Bob Witeck says this is unfair. “Their policies and practices have been good for a long time,” he told me. “This notion of targeting people because of their faith is deeply troubling.”

“… silence or neutrality is unacceptable… Either you’re for us or against us…”

Certainly anyone who has a wallet is free to use it however he chooses, but consider the motivation here.  Those proclaiming to be victims of hate are proving the case of the proponents of prop 8 who said that the gay marriage movement was about religious persecution as much as anything else.

I read a quote this morning from an LDS commenter at the Salt Lake Tribune that is particularly prescient:

“Just because a person is gay, I don’t assume they have AIDS,  just because I’m Mormon, don’t assume I hate gays.”  

Even reporters have been attacked.  Steve Lopez, who interviewed Marjorie Christoffersen (Mormon target of the El Coyote Restaurant boycott), had this to say today on the virulent reaction his readers gave him: 

…I’ve never been called a bigot so many times as I have since I wrote in my Sunday column about the boycott of El Coyote, the Los Angeles cantina whose Mormon manager donated $100 to Proposition 8, the successful November ballot initiative to ban gay marriage.

No doubt these hate-dripping commenters are among the same group who believe that prop 8 was all about hate.  All the rainbow wavers with signs proclaiming peace and love, was all that a sham?  a show?  What about respect and diversity?  What of tolerance and love? Who truly owns the hate?

Maggie Gallagher writes of her experience on the Dr. Phil Show:

“…I sat next to a powerful politician — Mayor Gavin Newsom — who ritually rejected violence but refused to decry these extraordinary threats to ordinary voters’ livelihoods. I also sat next to Joe Solmonese, head of the Human Rights Campaign, when a young Mormon in the audience asked him, “Why are you singling out my faith when so many other people supported Prop 8?” Did Joe, an amiable guy, take a moment to call his troops to back off from religious bigotry, to refocus on the larger problem — 7 million Californians disagree with his organization’s gay marriage civil rights dogma?

No. I sat silent, dumbfounded, next to Joe when he pointed at the young man and cried,

“We are going to go after your church every day for the next two years unless and until Prop 8 is overturned.”

My mouth dropped. This was Joe’s response just a few days after white powder was sent to LDS temples in Utah and California.”

Hate is hate, and it’s never justified.  It’s clear that advocates of same-sex “marriage” present the idea as a step forward for tolerance and respect—but their actions present a different case, especially if you happen to be Mormon.

Please Teach Me—This provocative video response to the anti-Mormon religious intolerance was created by a first-year LDS college student.

Just a reminder that the nation is watching.  —Beetle Blogger

No Case For Homosexuality in Bible

No Case For Homosexuality in Bible 

by Bottum, Reynolds, and Porter
washingtonpost.com

In the latest issue of Newsweek, editor Jon Meacham explains: "To argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt--it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition." Indeed, he continues, "this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism." Curiously, he intends this as a defense of Lisa Miller's cover story, which announces that we should approve homosexual marriage because the Bible tells that Jesus would want us to.

On any plane of argument, the contradiction would appear stunning, but, then, neither Jon Meacham nor Lisa Miller are engaged in argument. They're speaking, instead, in familiar tropes and fused-phrases and easy clichés. They're trying to convey a feeling, really, rather than an argument: Jesus loves us, love is good, homosexuals love one another, marriage is love, love is loving--a sort of warm bath of words, their meanings dissolved into a gentle goo. In their eyes, all nice things must be nice together, and Jesus comes to seem (as J.D. Salinger once mocked) something like St. Francis of Assisi and "Heidi's grandfather" all in one.

In truth, of course, Meacham and Miller actually know what everyone else knows: The Bible offers no support for homosexual marriage. Christianity teaches love, mercy, and forgiveness for those who do bad things, true enough. Look, for example, at the story in the Gospel of John where Jesus offers his divine love, mercy, and forgiveness to a woman guilty of adultery. He shamed those who would stone her. He taught us all that we are sinners and often hypocrites. And then he told her, "Go and sin no more." He did not reinterpret the Old Testament to proclaim adultery another life-style choice.

[Read more... ]

To read the original Newsweek article referenced, visit Beetle Blogger .

Joseph Bottum is editor of First Things: A Journal of Religion, Culture and Public Life. John Mark Reynolds, an evangelical, is associate professor of philosophy at Biola University. Bruce D. Porter is a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Obama & Warren Form an Alliance to Defend the DOMA

Really? No, of course not. But that's what you'd think has happened based on the blustering outcry of gay rights activists who are up-in-arms about the president-elect's inauguration invocation selection, Pastor Rick Warren. Have they conveniently ignored the fact that Obama also selected pro-SSM advocate, Joseph Lowery, to give the benediction? It would appear so. And it certainly lends further emotional appeal to their sad, minority "plight" when they fail to give proper recognition to that last fact.

[Read more...]

Attack on Parental Rights

Picture from SurlyGirl

Attack on Parental Rights

from ParentalRights.Org

The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children has been recognized and upheld for centuries. But there are dark clouds on the horizon.

Today parental rights are coming under assault from federal judges who deny or refuse to recognize these rights. Adding further danger to the child-parent relationship, international law seeking to undermine the parental role is advancing on the horizon. Together, these threats are converging to create a "perfect storm" that looms over the child-parent relationship.

In the early 1980s, a landmark parental rights case reached the Washington State Supreme Court. The case involved 13-year-old Sheila Marie Sumey, whose parents were alarmed when they found evidence of their daughter's participation in illegal drug activity and escalating sexual involvement. Their response was to act immediately to cut off the negative influences in their daughter's life by grounding her.
But when Sheila went to her school counselors complaining about her parent's actions, she was advised that she could be liberated from her parents because there was "conflict between parent and child." Listening to the advice she had received, Sheila notified Child Protective Services (CPS) about her situation. She was subsequently removed from her home and placed in foster care.
Her parents, desperate to get their daughter back, challenged the actions of the social workers in court. They lost. Even though the judge found that Sheila's parents had enforced reasonable rules in a proper manner, the state law nevertheless gave CPS the authority to split apart the Sumey family and take Sheila away.

DANGEROUS PRECEDENT

Parental rights are under attack in our nation, with the first threat originating from within the federal court system. As this story illustrates, a growing disregard for parental rights has been spreading within the courts of our nation.
Across the country, many judges are beginning to deny the vital role of parents in the lives of their children, instead inserting the government into a "parental" role in a child's life. This dangerous assertion is leading to the severance of the child-parent relationship in numerous instances across the nation—removals that cause unnecessary pain to both children and their parents.

A thirteen-year-old boy in Washington State was removed from his parents after he complained to school counselors that his parents took him to church too often. His school counselors had encouraged him to call Child Protective Services with his complaint, which led to his subsequent removal and placement in foster care. It was only after the parents agreed to a judge's requirement of less-frequent church attendance that they were able to recover their son.

HANGING BY A THREAD

Not all judges hold a low view of parental rights. Some, like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, believe that parental rights are among the "inalienable rights" of Americans enumerated in the Declaration of Independence but they are finding it increasingly difficult to rule in favor of parental rights when it is not explicitly included in the language of the Constitution.

Read the entire article here

The website has a lot of good resources (articles, information, etc.).