Nazi mama fights back

They took the kids after the mother (or father) drew a swastika on the kid's arm with indelible ink.

I don't know. If wrote words like "nigger" or "kike" or drew horrible pictures on my child to make them my own political billboard, which probably puts them at risk of harm, maybe my parenting skills do need to be investigated. Even if it doesn't go as far as taking them away completely.

"Child and Family Services workers were alerted after the second swastika incident at school, the CBC reported."

The SECOND incident? Interesting. It may be that their concern is more with the behavior of the mother towards her kids than her beliefs. After all, if I sent my kid to school twice with permanent marker on her arm, I would be silly not to expect some questions.

But I think that the taking of the kids was rather a stretch. Behavior is one thing, and permanent marker on the arm of a kid (two incidents) deserves an investigation but not withdrawl from the home. Taking kids simply based on the beliefs of the parents is wrong, even if those beliefs are repugnant.

Given some of the rhetoric coming from the more conservative religious groups in this country, I it's not surprising that children are taken from the homes of Pagans, homosexuals, or other people who do not fit the "normal" standard as defined by these folks.

www.witchvox.com/vn/vn_detail/dt_gno.html?&id=15321

www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/newsnotes/blbottoms.htm

Sadly, Rod, the disease that is infesting Canada appears to have roots here in the good old USA.

Wow, it took five comments for someone to take the story of Canadian authorities removing the children of a neo-Nazi mother from their home for someone to turn it around to a complaint about conservative Christians. There's got to be a name for this sort of thing. It's a variation of Manning's Corollary

Actually, in this case, Rod, you kinda set it up. You said "What's next? Taking the kids of pagans?" To which someone responded, "Heh, already happened here."

I dunno, Rod, it's less about conservative Christians and more about Every Thing Comes Down to Gay. Perhaps someone less tired than I can coin a clever phrase..."Pink Narcissism"? I'm out.

"Gay parents"? I apparently missed something in biology class.

Seriously, I know nobody who supports removing a child from the home of a biological parent just because they now identify as gay.

There's a lot of custody, adoption and artificial insemination issues (assisted reproductive technologies, if you prefer) that are beyond the scope of Rod's opener, so I'll not go there.

So, you see NO valid comparison, Rod, between children being taken from Nazi parents, and children in this country who have been taken from gay parents, from atheist parents and from pagan parents?

"But two men or two women can't have a baby without the cooperation of at least one member of the couple having intercourse with, or using the germ cell of, an opposite-sex partner."

Well, I'm enlightened.

"In other words, in order for a same-sex couple to graft a child onto its relationship one of the two must employ his or her genitilia in a fashion consistent with its natural telos."

Graft? Nice.

"Thus, it is ironic that a wedded love (in the case of a male couple) in which an instrument of life is placed in the recepticle of waste must cease for a time so that the former, the instrument of life, may fulfill its proper function with one outside that wedded love."

I don't think you know what irony actually is, but I'll leave that alone for now.

I find your focus on genitals somewhat odd, and your assumptions about the sex lives of gay men even stranger. Let's not forget that a penis is a passage way for waste as well (the rectum is not a "recepticle"), and so is the vagina during menstruation. This weird pure vs. impure comparison you've tried to set up rings false.

You know, the bridge of my nose wasn't designed to hold up my glasses. But it does a pretty good job. My nose is supposed to be an exit, not an entrance, but guess where I spray my allergy meds? I'm guess I'm not much concerned about the telos of varying parts of my body.

"Unlike infertile couples who overtly seek to heal what is damaged, same-sex couples must claim that their desire for children is legitimate while their love that needs no healing remains permanently, and by its nature, infertile."

I'm straight and I've adopted two children. My inability to physically bear children and the desire to raise them anyway isn't "legitimate" or "illegitimate", it just is. The pain of not being to have children is terrible, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, nor would I claim my pain is greater because I'm straight. My husband could have had his own children. He isn't, by his nature, infertile like I am. Does he suffer more than I do?

In any case, the desire for children isn't straight and it isn't gay. It's nearly universal in adult human beings.

So I would imagine you vigorously oppose a court removing children from gay parents, correct?

So I would imagine you vigorously oppose a court removing children from gay parents, correct?

If the sole reason for the removal of the children from the gay household is the homosexuality of the parents, then yes, of course I would oppose that. The parent-child bond is sacred, and the state that wishes to sunder it should be forced to clear a rather high bar. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I believed a child is being raised badly by virtue of being in a gay home, or a Marxist home, or a Rastafarian home. But to separate a child from his parents because of the beliefs or (non-violent, non-abusive, non-criminal) practices or beliefs of his parents is a worse evil by far.

This is pretty outrageous, but at least it's in Canada. And it's just one mom. It's not like they swooped in and took every single child from an entire community, then lied repeatedly about the case for weeks on end. That would be really outrageous. But that couldn't happen here.

I absolutely agree with Rod. The parent-child bond is sacred, and I too, for that reason, would oppose the state taking children out of the custody of a parent simply because the parent is a homosexual.

I would argue, however, that the same natural law that instructs us in the sacredness of the parent-child bond is the same one that teaches us that marriage is a unique institution for the merging of difference--male and female--for the purpose of uniting families and generations. For that reason, my defense of the gay parent entails a denial of same-sex marriage. How ironic is that?

In my case, I can trace my roots back to both England and Italy. Families and marriages, and the generations that tie them together, transcend states, governments, and political parties. So, when our fellow citizens request, indeed demand, that the state eradicate that understanding by equating the only family that nature knows with a state-constructed one, the state is saying that there are no real mothers and fathers and no children that actually belong to them. In other words, whatever you have, the state gives you and defines it as such. Leviathian triumphs.

And this is why I believe that a homosexual parent should not be separated from the child he or she dearly loves.

Having waded through the whole newstory, I think Rod took off on a tangent.

It's one thing to support the right of parents to hold and teach beliefs many people find odious. It's another if those parents seek to cause disturbance in a public school:

"Four months ago, her daughter drew a swastika on her arm and went to school, where her teacher scrubbed it off. The mother helped her daughter draw it on her arm again, an act she regrets.

"It was one of the stupidest things I've done in my life but it's no reason to take my kids," the mother told CBC News."

So it wasn't all about beliefs. It was at least partly about disrupting class.

But as other posters have noted, there's plenty to put the Canadian authorities in a bad light. For instance,

"Another man Gerald Hannon who writes for Canada's national newspaper the Globe and Mail is a teacher at Ryerson, (a University in Canada) and regularly teaches his beliefs about pedophilia with his students. The CJC and the B'nai Brith have remained silent over this teacher who compares child-sex rings to children's hockey. Hannon said: 'I could never understand before how children's hockey differed from organized child-sex rings. Both involved children and adults. Both involved danger. Both involve pleasure. Yet we approve of children's hockey but deplore child-sex rings.'"

Obviously, Canada hasn't arrived at high level of fairness and balance we've achieved in the public schools in the US.