A very interesting article! In the end, the whole argument comes down to parental rights, if any!

„They (the Bodnariu’s) found, though, that their beliefs about how to raise their children are in conflict with the cultural norms and laws of Norway.

Since November the parents have only been allowed see their baby son twice a week for two hours, as well as the two older boys, Matthew, 5, and John, 2. The agency has refused them any access to their daughters, Eliana, 9, and Naomi, 7.

Why It Matters: Is this a case of religious bias against parents or a misunderstanding based on cultural norms? Maybe both.

which are considered “violence” under Norwegian law. “In Romania it is not considered violence,” Ruth Bodnariu said. “In Norway unfortunately that’s [a] criminal case.”

Christian parents may disagree about the merits of spanking and other forms of physical discipline, but we generally believe we have duty to raise our children according to the teachings of the Bible. Unfortunately, in many Western nations our duties and rights as parents are circumscribed by the cultural norms of the secular public. This is true even in the United States, as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has repeatedly warned us.

For example, last November Justice Scalia told an audience at Georgetown University Law Center that there is no U.S. constitutional right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children. Although Scalia believes the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the “unalienable rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, it is not a right necessarily protected by the Constitution since many “important rights are not contained there.” 

“For example, my right to raise my children the way I want,” Scalia said. “To teach them what I want them taught, not what Big Brother says. That is not there.”

You can read the entire article HERE.

About Cristian Ionescu

Pastor Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church Chicago, USA


  1. MORE INFRINGEMENTS BY NORWAY ON PARENTAL AUTHORITY. See Shocking Video: [Click youtube link to see this shocking video–two little blond girls are being confiscated by force against parents & children’s will]. This is very DAMNING TESTIMONY implicating the State itself in these egregious activities!


  3. Scalia is a literalist when it comes to the constitution, therefore I think he is suggesting that is open season when it comes to this issue , the statist can impose whatever laws and rules he wants on our families…
    What’s happening in Norway will be normal practice across the world… It is only a matter of time and most people will conform to it.

    • Yes and no
      He is decrying the fact that it’s not in the Constitution, warning us that the State could legislate on it, without potentially breaching the Constitution.
      Also, he is aware that there are many rights just as this, not being included in the Constitution (I’m just giving an example: the right to breathe) maybe just because they’re so obvious, the founders thought it ridiculous to state in a document.

      • „… maybe just because they’re so obvious, the founders thought it ridiculous to state in a document.” Very good discernment!!!

        Now, read what James Madison had to say about this subject at the link below. And while you’re there, read the text of the Ninth Amendment. Here’s James Madison text which gave rise to the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution:


        Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those.1 Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. “It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.”2 It is clear from its text and from Madison’s statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas[p.1504]not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement.3 Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.

        The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions of the Supreme Court4 until it became the subject of some exegesis by several of the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut.5 There a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives was voided as an infringement of the right of marital privacy. Justice Douglas, writing the opinion of the Court, asserted that the “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”6 Thus, while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment, apparently to support the thought that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg, concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment.

        “The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep–rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth[p.1505]Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.”7 While, therefore, neither opinion sought to make of the Ninth Amendment a substantive source of constitutional guarantees, both did read it as indicating a function of the courts to interpose a veto with regard to legislative and executive efforts to abridge other fundamental rights. In this case, both opinions seemed to concur that the fundamental right claimed and upheld was derivative of several express rights and in this case, really, the Ninth Amendment added almost nothing to the argument. But if there is a claim of a fundamental right which cannot reasonably be derived from one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, even with the Ninth Amendment, how is the Court to determine, first, that it is fundamental, and second, that it is protected from abridgment?”


        „The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

        While the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a judge to be commended for his fearless castigation he often engages in against his own court, anyone reading his „off the bench” remarks should take them with a grain of salt. Be informed, he is a type of Joseph of Arimathea–a member of the Court–and „causa sine qua non” for all of the evils visited upon United States. Remember that!

  4. Eystein Rossum – corespondent al departamentului politic la publicația Mediehuset Bergens Tidende, o publicație de mare tiraj din Norvegia de Est și Naustdal – împreună cu o echipă de fotojurnaliști, a sosit la Sibiu pentru a participa la marșul-miting de protest, de sâmbătă, 30 ianuarie 2016.

    „Suntem uimiți de numărul impresionant de persoane angajate în aceste demersuri. Vrem să aflăm mai multe detalii despre reacția României în acest caz”, a declarat Eystein Rossum.

    ..informatii luate de pe rodi agnus dei reportajul de la tvr, emisiunea in numele copilului

Lasă un răspuns

Completează mai jos detaliile tale sau dă clic pe un icon pentru a te autentifica:


Comentezi folosind contul tău Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Google

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Conectare la %s

%d blogeri au apreciat: