Monthly Archives: July 2014

The Master Builder’s Most Treasured Building

31 Thursday Jul 2014

Posted by in Alfred Kanth, Controversial Issues, Court Decisions, German Raid, Judge Frau Roser, Judge Krüger, Running away from foster care

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

A Parable for our Times

There once was a great master builder who erected a glorious building of noble substance. Since he especially valued the integrity of his buildings he chose only the best materials and laid a solid foundation. All those who saw it marveled at the sublime structure and were amazed at the extraordinary quality. The master builder then ordered for his most trusted steward to tend to the structural care of this most treasured building of his. Because he wanted to ensure the integrity of the building the steward had several structural engineers come twice a year for inspection. Thus the master builder’s building remained safe for many years and weathered even the strongest storms.

One day an arrogant enemy filled with envy for the master builder’s good reputation decided to destroy his most treasured building. He spread lies and slandered the master builder at the building office of the land by saying the building was dangerous. He flooded the officials with evil reports and hired biased engineers to give evidence of the dangerous condition of the building through manipulated pictures. The officials gave ear to the false witnesses and started doubting the integrity of the building. Finally the officials accepted the enemy’s proposal to dig under the foundation of the building to prove its faulty foundation.

Early one morning the engineers of the enemy rushed upon the master builder’s building and started digging with great force and violence under its foundation. In vain the steward presented the reports of all the licensed structural engineers that had inspected the building for years to hinder the attack of the enemy. But all that was left for them to do was to watch with great grief how the foundation of the building was being undermined. And behold, soon the magnificent facade of the master builder’s building started to crack …

 

The children of Klosterzimmern are the master builder’s treasured possession in our parable. The building office is the school authorities and the social services. The officials had examined the children and documented their physical, psychological and academic condition very clearly for years. Now some “hired structural engineers”, who are court ordered psychologists are supposed to assess the children in state custody to support the final custody decision of Judge Krüger in Ansbach and Judge Roser in Nördlingen. And of course there is the hostile RTL reporter Wolfgang Kuhnikg who wanted to make a name for himself.

From 2006-2013 the certified psychologist for the Department of Education examined the children of Klosterzimmern twice a year. In every evaluation his conclusion was that the children were being educated either equal to or above the average. He also made clear that the children were well adjusted, happy, and in a normal developmental range for their ages as well as having a good relationship with their parents.

(Excerpts from: Evaluation of the academic achievement of the community school in Klosterzimmern from the school psychologist/counciling principal)

In this academic evaluation the constant efforts towards a trusting cooperation and the interest in the increase of the achievements was again visible from all participants. In all the groups the active participation and joy in speaking, the secure feedback on what had been learned, the high level of concentration, the very disciplined behaviour, the friendly atmosphere as well as the considerate interaction among the children was remarkably positive. Rain am Lech, 13. February 2012

Dear Mr Ministerial Director,

Attached is the file of the statements of the local school authorities in the county of Donau-Ries concerning the achievements of the students in the community school in Klosterzimmern from July 2009.

The achievements can be evaluated at least as average, partly the achievements are in the overaverage level. In comparison to last year’s evaluation there are clear progresses in the self activity of the students as well as in their use of medias and visual methods. Especially mentioned should be as well the open, trustful atmosphere during the evaluations as well as the great willingness of the community to cooperate.

These findings were confirmed by Herr Kanth over and over all the way up to May of 2013, four months before the first devastating raid in Klosterzimmern where the Jugendamt took all the children under the age of 18 into state custody. In a Spiegel Online Article of April 18, 2013 the head of Social Services Donau-Reis, Herr Kanth, stated that a public health officer examined 40 to 50 children from Klosterzimmern and were not able to find any traces of abuse.

alfred-kanth

Alfred Kanth, Jugendamt manager

He also said, “Every four to six weeks some Jugendamt workers visited the farm. There we experience happy, well-raised children who are age-appropriate and who cling to their parents. We have no handle to take them out of their families.”

(Excerpts from: Meeting at the school authorities Donauwörth, May 28. 2009)

The heads of the school authorities and social services went to the community on April 23. 2009 to get an overview of the situation there. They could not find any signs of violence against the children whatsoever (like marks or indications in the conversations with the children).

The psychologist shared that he comes in contact with the children of the community during the evaluations of their academic achievements about 5 days twice a year. Meanwhile the relationship with the adults of the community is so trusting that they even leave the children alone with him. During his visits he hardly has contact to the parents except for a mutual greeting. The community is more open also to modern subjects so the children are for example well informed about pregnancy.

There is a child with a Down syndrome in the community. This child is being assessed by a special teacher. He stated that the child was very well fostered. In his many encounters in the community he never once could notice any hint that the children were abused. He on the contrary had the impression that the relationship between fathers and their children was very loving and in no way characterized by fear. That is why he never had the assumption that the children were beaten.

Mr. Kanth shared that one child of the community, M. had come from a difficult situation (his father is an alcoholic) from his father in Austria and moved voluntarily to his mother into the community 1 ½ years ago. The boy is now about 16 years old. He knows M. some and has had conversations with him when he moved to his mother to the community. Mr. Kanth is sure that M. would tell him if he was abused. He has also experienced life outside of the community.

Mr Kanth reports further that allegations had been raised already years before that the community would not receive doctor treatments in case of sicknesses. He had investigated because of this issue. Mr. R. (a member of the community) who has an education as an EMT told him that they prefer natural treatments and not to vaccinate. But in case of severe sickness they would seek expert treatment. These informations are correct according to Mr. Kanth.

So far none of the doctors that treated them have notified the social services because of suspicion of physical abuse of the children. Mr. Kanth and the psychologist both agree in their conviction that there is no indications whatsoever that the children are being beaten in school. The children do not give the impression in the least to be fearful and there have not been noticed any physical signs (blue marks, stripes …)

Mr. L. refers to the evaluation in the community school for the subject English that have been done by Mrs. B. She does not agree to the way of life of the community especially their view of women. But also Mrs. B. has not noticed any indications that the children are abused.

The point of all this is to stress that the court has many, many positive evaluations of the children of Klosterzimmern and not one negative one. They don’t need any more evaluations to determine the psychological state of the children. So, any current or future evaluation by any other psychologist should give great weight to the history of evaluations by the psychologist and Herr Kanth. In fact it would be impossible to have an objective evaluation of the children after the tramautizing effects of the last 10 months on those very children.

All the children who are old enough to run away have run away to their parents. The ones who have run away into the safety of their parents tell many horrendous stories of how they were traumatized by the raid and its aftermath in foster homes and institutions. The rest of our children who are too young, too traumatized, or too afraid to run live for the moment they can be reunited to their parents. They express this repeatedly to their foster parents, to social workers, and the court to no avail.

In the RTL’s sensationalized, manipulated, exaggerated film that paints a gruesome and false picture of the beautiful children of the Twelve Tribes, Mr. Kuhnigk gloats over the presumption that our children are now being “lovingly protected” in state custody. There, in state custody, they are being abused, as many of them have testified. Maybe his next undercover show should portray interviews with our children about their personal experiences in foster institutions and foster families.

Now the Courts ask the parents to submit to further evaluations to move the case forward. But why do they not read the ones that were done over years prior to the Raid?

They are the only ones that would be accurate. Do they look for different results than what they already have? The social services and the court still don’t have any handle, but they continue to keep the children and deny the parents any right to influence their children in any way!

When one has the advantage

30 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Controversial Issues, Court Decisions, Genocide, Jugendamt Lies, Religious Freedom

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

In 1740, Frederick the Great set Germany on course…

He did so by posing a question to which he already knew the answer. The fateful day came, November 1, 1740. Frederick asked Heinrich von Podewils, one of his councilors, “I give you a problem to solve:

When one has the advantage, should one make use of it or not?

A-Young-Frederick-the-Great

Young Frederick the Great.

“I am ready with my troops and with everything else. If I do not use them now I keep in my hands a powerful but useless instrument. If I use my army it will be said that I have had the skill to take advantage of the superiority  which I have over my neighbor.”

Podewils suggested that this  would be considered immoral.

Frederick countered. When had kings been deterred by morality? Could he afford to practice the Ten Commandments in that den of wolves known as the Great Powers? {Durant, “Story of Civilization, Vol. IX (Simon and Schuster, NY, 1965) p. 451}

This was a far cry from the man who had, just shortly before wished to be seen as “the first servant” of his people:

Antimachiavell

Originally published anonymously; its author soon became known.

 

“It is thus justice (one would have to say) which must be the main responsibility of a sovereign. Since it is the prime interest of the many people whom they control, they must give it priority over any interest of their own.

“What then becomes of Machiavelli’s of naked self-interest, self-aggrandizement, unleashed ambition and despotism?

“The sovereign, far from being the absolute master of those who are under his dominion, is only the first servant.”

Taking advantage of the powerful army his father, Frederick I, had prepared for him, Frederick II, like a modern Alexander, waged many, many wars. Finally, both he and his nation were exhausted. He is famed for being an “enlightened absolute monarch.” Upholding freedom or religion and (at least at first), freedom of speech, he differed from the religious monarchs before him. But as he liked to say, “My  people and I have come to an agreement that satisfies us both: they are to say what they please, and I am to do what I please.” {Durant, p. 448}

Indeed, as the Encyclopedia Britannica says, “Frederick, the third king of Prussia, ranks among the two or three dominant figures in the history of modern Germany. Under his leadership Prussia became one of the great states of Europe. Its territories were greatly increased and its military strength displayed to striking effect.” And who were the other “dominant figures in the history of modern Germany”? A poster of some seventy plus years ago lists them as follows. Did they all learn Frederick’s lessons, too? You be the judge.

What the King Conquered, the Prince Shaped, the Field Marshal defended, the Soldier saved and united.

Translation:

What the King Conquered, the Prince Shaped, the Field Marshal defended, the Soldier saved and united.

(King Frederick II, Prince Bismark, Field Marshall von Hindenberg, and Herr Hitler.)

When one has the advantage…

Yes, when have governments been deterred by questions of morality? That is, when they have the advantage. There is much they can do then. Indeed, virtually anything.

When have social services upheld such prime directives as extreme measures last (taking children away from parents)? When one has the advantage, one can seize the children first, confidently relying on the great advantage of the machineries of public opinion, already rolling, to justify its extreme measures.

2013.09.05_ReportersFilming

Reporters “respecting” our privacy and filming the trauma of our children being seized 5 September 2013.

And then, if any “blips” appear in the program, the state presses on, confidently relying on the press to boisterously lie again and again to make the original, false picture still seem true.

Yes, little things like children running away from foster care to run back to their parents. That would be a disturbing reality for the German people.

Little things like beautiful cards from the captive children expressing their love for their parents and their longing to go home.

Who cares about such little things?

Even if the advantage is gained by such “CIA methods” as secret videos (as a Bavarian legislator said should not be done in the Senate hearing of January 23, 2014), then the State can do what it has longed to do, destroy a minority religion. Before any hearings, before any guilt was established, against other precedents, and even subsequent rulings of other, similar cases by the same judges, by seizing children first, not last. Not even when there is a lengthy history of friendship and cooperation with school officials and others, even the Jugendamt.

No matter the trauma to the children and the devastation to the parents of doing so. Then, building on the advantages of force and manipulated public opinion, virtually denying the confiscated children contact with their parents. Yes, once every two or even three weeks for an hour. One can do such things when one has the advantage.

Violating their supposedly inviolable rights to privacy in their letters and phone calls, denying them mail in foreign languages, denying them the freedom of their religion, mocking that religion, and even through intensive interrogation by criminal police attempting to turn those seized children against their parents.

  1. 11 children were taken in care for which there were no decisions of the district court Nördlingen. This constitutes the offense of false imprisonment – the deprivation of their liberty. Other legal bases according to Code of Criminal Procedure or under SGB VIII were not available.
  2. All seized children were forced to undress down to their underpants and show even the bare buttocks, there was no legal basis. The investigation showed that no signs of ill-treatment could be determined by the medical officer. This behavior, coercion under § 240 of the Criminal Code, is moreover a very serious matter because the offender has abused his powers or his position as a public official, and thus can be a criminal offence.
  3. The Jugendamt directed – on the basis of both written evidence and testimony – that all the letters of the children to their parents be opened and read, and that all the letters of the parents to the children be opened and read. This arrangement involved children of all ages, including young people between 12 and almost 18 years of age. These and further such actions constitute offenses, such as § 202 of the Criminal Code, § 206 Section 4 of the Criminal Code, and also violate the right to privacy under Article 10 of the Basic Law, optionally at retention of letters, also the crime of unfaithfulness. Justifications are not apparent. In particular, no court had ordered the inspection of letters and phone calls.
  4. Multiple times children ran away from foster care and children’s homes and were returned under use of physical force by members of the Jugendamt there. The use of physical violence against children requires a court order. Such an order did not exist. There have been several confirmations of this unique legal situation in proceedings at the Higher Regional Court of Munich, amongst others, with reference to a decision of the BayObLG of 4/27/1979 (Rb 3 Z 28/79, FamRZ 80, 81). Multiple times children were locked up in children’s homes. In one case, the children were being locked in at night. In another case, a 17-year-old girl was denied for more than a week, under the threat of physical and psychological violence, to leave the home for maladjusted children at all. Custodial measures had not been ordered by the family court. This constitutes the fact of deprivation of liberty that qualifies as a crime under § 239 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code.
  5. The Jugendamt conducted multiple searches in Klosterzimmern and in the process invaded the homes of several people. Given the fundamental right to inviolability of the home there is a need for a legal basis for these searches. There were no judicial search warrants. Other legal bases did not exist.
  6. In the facilities in which the Jugendamt had assigned them, affected children were bullied in many ways, slandered, abused, and insulted as Jews inter alia. It will be necessary to consider whether these facts are a neglect of the duties of supervision by the Jugendamt and so constitute criminal offenses.

But when one has the advantage one must not be deterred by morality.

No, not even by one’s own laws, by an agency’s own code of conduct. . . not even by one’s own sense of decency.

When one has the advantage, one uses it — if one does not fear God or regard even the cries of children.

Read Luke 18:1-8 for the response of the Twelve Tribes to this injustice.
 

Would Abused Children Write Such Letters?

29 Tuesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Cards from the Captive Children, Jugendamt Lies, Schott Family

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Nay, it is loved children who love their parents who write such letters!
Brief03_1Brief03_2

Translation

Dear Besorah,

I made this heart for you. It expresses how fond I am of you and how much I love you.

I am very sad that it has been so long since we have seen each other.

But you are always with me in my thoughts.

I hope we can come home soon. I dreamed that it would be next week.

Love you,

Chaninah

Besorah is Chaninah’s and Ishah’s oldest sister. Besorah has been very outspoken in her love for her parents, her desire to go home, and the utter injustice suffered by the children of Klosterzimmern and Wörnitz in being taken from their parents.

Brief04_1Brief04_2

Translation

Dear Imma (Hebrew for mother),

I love you so much and hope that we come home soon.

I‘m overjoyed that you are allowed to visit us.

But we are coming soon anyway.

That’s a promise. But praying is the only way it is going to happen.

Your Ishah

Brief02_1Brief02_2

Translation

Dear Imma (Hebrew for mother),

I drew this picture for you.

The sheep are the community, because we have to stay together.

We must never give up. 

I dreamed that we are coming home next week. Hopefully it is true.

I miss you sooo much.

I am going to the eye-nose-throat doctor. I might have to have my tonsils taken out. They are really swollen.

If I have to get them out, maybe you can come visit me more often.

I love you very, very much

(Literally: I love you so much it hurts.)

Your Chaninah

Brief01_1Brief01_2

Translation

Dear Abba (Hebrew for father),

This drawing is for you.

You are like the tree that nourishes us; you feed us when we are hungry and we can hold onto you when we are shaky (have nothing to hold onto).

I miss you sooo much. And love you more than anything.

I had a dream. Imma can tell you all about it.

Love you, your Chaninah

 

Read more about the Schott family.

Two Minute Hate

28 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by in Controversial Issues, From the parents, Gender Mainstreaming, Shadow of the Future

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

An Orwellian World

In 1949 English writer George Orwell published his famous novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four that painted a picture of a future humanity dominated by intolerable tyranny. In its pages were written unforgettable images of that bleak world with its total lack of privacy, government secrecy and duplicity, endless warfare, social programs to redefine human sexuality and family life and the use of mass media to control the thoughts and feelings of the subject population.

In the book, the ruling class sees its greatest joy as the insufferable oppression of the helpless:

“always there will be the intoxication of power, always at every moment there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless…”

If you want to imagine such a future; imagine a boot stepping on a human face forever. The moral of this story is clear, isn’t it: don’t let it happen here. But is it? 

Two Minute Hate

It is relatively easy to see how Orwell’s novel captured elements of Nazi Germany or even more clearly, Stalinist Russia. But the images in the novel still speak to people today in countries all around the world because they sense that some of the societal distortions so graphically portrayed in the book are actually happening to them or around them. That’s what we see in what the novel described as “Two Minute Hate”

2 Minutes Hate 1984 MovieFrom the futuristic dystopia 1984 by George Orwell:

“Winston’s diaphragm was constricted. He could never see the face of Goldstein without a painful mixture of emotions. It was a lean Jewish face, with a great fuzzy aureole of white hair and a small goatee beard – a clever face, and yet somehow inherently despicable, with a kind of senile silliness in the long thin nose, near the end of which a pair of spectacles was perched. It resembled the face of a sheep, and the voice, too, had a sheep-like quality. Goldstein was delivering his usual venomous attack upon the doctrines of the Party – an attack so exaggerated and perverse that a child should have been able to see through it, and yet just plausible enough to fill one with an alarmed feeling that other people, less level-headed than oneself, might be taken in by it. He was abusing BIG BROTHER, he was denouncing the dictatorship of the Party, he was demanding the immediate conclusion of peace with Eurasia, he was advocating freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, he was crying hysterically that the Revolution has been betrayed. . .

From the safety of one’s armchair you consider that what Goldstein is preaching is exactly what his terrible world needs: freedom of speech and all the rest, especially freedom of thought. But it is exactly these, and especially the last, that the Two Minute Hate is designed to hold up as the greatest evils. How well it works, you marvel. Glad, aren’t we, not to live in such a world? Glad we are not enraged like even Julia, the heroine of the story, gets at the very ideas that could save her. . . that we soon learn she secretly loves. .  .

Julia Two Minute HateOrwell, resumed: “But what was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were – in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less. Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him. A day never passed when spies and saboteurs acting under his directions were not unmasked by the Thought Police. He was the commander of a vast shadowy army, an underground network of conspirators dedicated to the overthrow of the State. . .”

A German professor wrote to us earlier this year that we sought the overthrow of the German state. The words he used were “win hegemony.” Against such as us, the “state has every right to defend itself.” This is talking about the few members of the Twelve Tribes of Israel in Germany. We live in Wörnitz and Klosterzimmern, in exactly two communities. Yet at the same time, he also acknowledges, curiously, that we have little power.  And I quote:

“Please do take note that whenever your definition of human rights clashes with the definition enshrined in the laws of the land, the state has every right to defend itself. Where there is no such thing as natural law, law-making has to be negotiated in a never-ending discourse. You are part of that discourse but a very small one that has little bargaining power, and even less power to win hegemony by blackmail and pressure tactics.” (From the post, When natural law is obsolete.)

Hegemony is predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others. How could anyone think what we are seeking hegemony by “blackmail and pressure tactics“? Perhaps we are indeed the Emmanuel Goldstein of Germany. Certainly, we stand for and say the very things that this world, and especially Germany, needs to hear.

This post was stimulated by a reader’s comment that she always sees certain things about the Twelve Tribes in Germany, in every single article about us, causing her to see that the issue is not about child abuse, as has been commonly alleged. Let it be said again, that as of 6 September 2013, the Jugendamt’s own doctors acknowledged the health and well-being of our children — acknowledged in fact that there was no child abuse. Something they already knew from their close contact and many visits, both of their own number, school officials, and school psychologists. Many visits over the twenty plus years we have been in Germany.

So we have become a “hated group” because of what we stand for: marriage and the family, parental rights and authority, freedom of religion — including the practice of one’s beliefs, the right to be different, the right not to conform to society, the right to disagree with the programmed majority. We must be hated and vilified at every opportunity, because these things all stand in the way of the ultimate goals of gender mainstreaming, the spectre that haunts the world today.

That spectre seeks the redefinition of humanity, including the liberation of identity from one’s birth – one’s sex at birth. Those are some of the goals. And gender mainstreaming is the universal guiding principle and political strategy of every ministry of the German government.

FMER_GenderMain

Such goals require totalitarian means:

Gabriele Kuby: “I don’t believe they (virtue, beauty, and truth) are not understood. The problem is the cultural revolution which aims at destroying their content—and our cowardliness in failing to stand up for them.

“The very reason why the LGBT movement is becoming more totalitarian is that it recognizes that man has a conscience, that man yearns for love, and that he seeks truth, beauty, and goodness. Therefore, everything which tends to wake up man’s conscience must be eliminated.

“Thus, children must be programmed and sexualized in kindergarten so that they may lose their natural ability to distinguish between good and evil, and lose their natural inner orientation towards the good.”

All these things Kuby writes of: conscience, man’s yearning for love, truth, beauty, and goodness, must be hated. This is the work of gender mainstreaming. In words strikingly similar to a passage in Brave New World, one German parent wrote:

“There is a new law that all children should be taught about sex from the age of 6 years old and up. They should be around other children (naked, of course) and experience this “new” feeling and surrounding. In every school and Kindergarten there should be a room set aside just for this.”

To enable this to happen, every opposing voice is now or will be what we are already, the frequent object of two minute hates. Oh, the typical citizen thinks of these as newscasts. Yes, just the news, just the way things are.

Here is an example of official hate speech from seventy-one years ago, of deriding the very thoughts that would have lifted them from the barbarism of their days into a higher plane of life. It concerns the aftermath of the executions of the members of the White Rose.

“The Munich students weren’t stirred to action, as Sophie had wished. Instead they expressed their loyalty to the Nazi government by staging a pro-Nazi demonstration in front of the university just two hours after the executions of Hans and Sophie Scholl and Christopher Probst.

“Three days later, at a special assembly, a Nazi student leader gave a speech, deriding the White Rose for their resistance activities. Hundreds of students cheered their approval of the speech. They also gave custodian Jakob Schmid a standing ovation.” {S. C. Bartoletti, Hitler Youth: Growing up in Hitler’s Shadow (Scholastic, Inc., 2005), p. 127}

The Children of the Twelve Tribes: What Kind of Fruit?

21 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by in Controversial Issues, Court Decisions, From the parents, Jugendamt Lies

≈ 1 Comment

Virtually everyone who observes or interacts with the children of the Twelve Tribes in Germany is amazed at their alertness, good manners, spontaneity, relationships with their parents, their ability to engage with adults in a conversation, and their good personal hygiene. From grandparents and neighbors not in the community in Klosterzimmern to documentation of school officials for ten years, the reports are the same. Our children are happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and secure in the care of their parents in the Community in Klosterzimmern. This is the overwhelmingly positive fruit in the children of the childrearing practices of the parents of the Twelve Tribes in Germany.

Even after the raid on September 5, 2013, when the parents of the communities were caught totally by surprise and their children were snatched away from their parents in tears, the state officials had them examined by doctors that day and even then none of them were found to have any signs of abuse. In the face of these facts the looming question is:

Why does the state not give the children back to the parents, since they found no evidence of abuse in any of them?

If you ask state officials this question, they will say it is because the children are spanked and spanking children is against the law and it alone, regardless of any other factor, automatically constitutes abuse. Does this make any sense to you? How can the state justify removal for abuse when there is no evidence of abuse? The parents continue to ask this question but no one is listening…not the Jugendamt, not the courts, not the press, no one. But if you ask the people who know the communities and who know our children, they will tell you that the children are amazing. Even the school officials who interacted with our children for ten years gave the positive report. They even documented it in their school files. Yet they are afraid to speak publicly about this.

Why is there so much fear of the truth?

Are they afraid that maybe the Jugendamt will come and get their children, too or that they will lose their jobs? Court appointed lawyers for the parents and children of the community who have recommended the children be given back to their parents have been removed. Psychologists who have found that the children are psychologically sound are not consulted nor listened to by the courts.

Is there anyone in Germany willing to confront the fact that there are children in Germany who are spanked and are not abused? Surely, we know there are many, many parents in Germany who are in this category. The law in Germany is against spanking, but nowhere does the law say, “if someone spanks their child, take the child from their parents.” Yet this is what is happening to twenty-six young children who have been deprived of their parents for over ten months now. Nowhere is this mandated by German law!1

No one is really stopping to think about what is best for each child. No one is weighing the grave harm to the child of being separated from their parents for ten months! This is not a psychological mystery requiring testing. It is common sense.

One official even said, ‘We know you love your children. That is not the question!’

Why is that not the question if we are concerned about the best interest of each child? A German scholar who studies “sekten” even notes that members of the Twelve Tribes “lovingly discipline” their children! (Gerald Willms, The Wonderful World of Sects, 2012, p. 84)2

Other aspects of child protection law that are NOT being followed regarding the parents of Twelve Tribes children unlawfully taken by the state:

  • By law parents and children have a right not to participate in psychological testing and not to have that fact used against them. Twelve Tribes parents are being penalized for not using these tests and the Jugendamt is seeking to violate the child’s right not to use them either.

  • It seems that what the Jugendamt wants is control and they are not willing to consider the proof is the children themselves and how they simply are. The court and the Jugendamt are basing the removal of the children based on theory and not based on evidence of actual harm.

  • A basic tenet of child protection law requires that the social workers work toward unification of the parents and child. With Twelve Tribes parents it is often spoken “You will never get your children back!” As for the children, they are being programmed against their parents’ faith deliberately and tricked by psychological pressure to conform to the will of the Jugendamt! This is child abuse, the blatant manipulation of children against their chosen culture. What happened to their supposed rights of the child?

  • The older children who were able escaped the clutches of the Jugendamt to make their way back home. Who says they do not have their own will? They have plenty of will to want to be home with their parents and the little ones are the same. They are just helpless to exercise their own will at the hands of the all-powerful Jugendamt who abuses their power. They are supposed to help, not control.

A good tree bears good fruit!

A great teacher once said, “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” So is there room in the German law to look at this wise measure of judgment? Or is there no way to see the good fruit for what it is? The rationale of the law as applied to the Twelve Tribes, by the Jugendamt, and by the courts is that all children who are spanked are abused, regardless of the fruit which is the good condition of the children.

This rationale goes against the conscience, the clear instruction in the old and new testaments of the Bible and against the God-given natural instincts and God-given rights of parents to exercise authority over their children to raise them up with good character to be good citizens. German law refers to this right as a “pre-determined” right of parents and it is being ignored. If this right is taken away, either by the law itself or its application by the court, it gives the state, rather than the parent, unlimited authority and control over the children. Unmitigated state power is a dangerous tool to destroy families. It is not the purpose of government.

Governments were not created to parent children, it is not their predetermined right. German law is clear that parents and children have a right to family autonomy. It cannot be taken away simply because of what a parent believes. Supposedly children have rights also, but there is no provision for them to exercise them unless they agree with the Jugendamt. So does this not make the Jugendamt all powerful over the parents and the children, based on their theories alone? Who is it that says that the Jugendamt has more authority over the child than the parent absent evidence of actual abuse? Nowhere in the law does it say spanking mandates the removal of children.

We do not believe that we are “above the law” as many have alleged. We believe that if there is actual evidence of a Twelve Tribes parent being abusive, take that parent to court for a fair trial. There must be individual treatment, not the illegal practice of “guilt by association.”

The law requires, even when there is proof of actual abuse, that the least restrictive state intrusion be used, not the most extreme step of removing the children. All the court’s actions have been based on generalized theories, not on evidence as to what is in the best interest of each child taken. Twelve Tribes’ members have been lumped together as a group, completely denying the individual treatment as required by law. Article 3 of the German Constitution says that any German citizen should not be at “any advantage or disadvantage because of their faith or religious opinions.” Does this provision not apply to members of the Twelve Tribes?

A penitent German pastor, Martin Niemoeller, spoke in 1946:

“In Germany, they came first for the Communists,And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then…they came for me…And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

*****

1 Numerous cases in the law books prove this to be true. Even the judge handling most of the cases ruled otherwise in a case where a non-Twelve Tribes’ parent spanked.

2 Religious scholars throughout the world know that the testimony of apostates and those who leave groups is notoriously unreliable. Far more credible and trustworthy are the works of scholars who objectively research and study these groups.