3 Children removed from NJ parents

[kandrathe]

I was unaware we were allowed to assume why something happens, even when we know it's private information that we don't have. Chances are, if it was the naming or whatever, someone will be a whistle blower and you can get in your righteous uproar then. Otherwise, we don't know.

When the secret police haul someone off for questioning, would we also say "It was probably for a good reason." This did also happen after 9/11 to citizens and non-citizens who were suspected of aiding and abetting islamicists. "It's confidential" can only go so far in a free society. If the police are saying that the mother and father are loving parents, and CPS says its not about the name, what are we to believe? My theory is that CPS will make the case that the parents are endangering the kids with their beliefs. The implications from the states actions are that some type of abuse or risk of harm is occurring, correct?

Here is another article with a bit more info; Protecting Adolf Hitler Campbell

"Child welfare workers had already warned the children’s dad, Heath Campbell, to remove swastika’s from the family car to avoid endangering the kids. “If the fear is that the Campbells' politics had made them so unpopular" it put the children's lives at risk, then the state can "swoop in and 'rescue' any child" whose parents have controversial beliefs."

What should we think about all the name sakes of Micheal Collins, or the babies named "Osama" after 9/11? Now consider that the swastika (certainly a hated symbol) were replaced instead with the Star of David (hateful to Muslims), or the Cross (hated by atheists, and non-Christians), or a confederate flag, or just a bumper sticker what was politically controversial (such as pro-choice or pro-life). When we as parents publicly affirm our political views, are we putting our children at risk of reprisal from our political enemies? If so, does the state have the right to protect our children from our unpopular political views? Chilling. Consider the risks that Dr. Martin Luther King took, which eventually did cost him his life. Would it have been correct to take his children from him for their own protection?