The Table of the Steadfast
On Wednesday, November 23, 2011 an article was published on the front page of A.M. Costa Rica about Nikoline’s death and the “long-running dispute on vaccinations” between her family and government officials in Puriscal. My hope, is that anyone aware of this tragic saga will take the time to read more than just that article published in the daily English publication, or the easy introductions on my blog. My hope is that everyone will take the time to read the work that James has tirelessly researched, drafted and submitted to the ministries and courts. It is all here on this blog.
I am disheartened to see that the focus of the article in A.M. Costa Rica is on the actions and ideals of our friends. I would wish that an educated journalist writing a story about the tragic passing of a young girl, would take the time to analyze the actions of the officials who issued and carried out the order to raid our friends’ home and forced them to seek refuge at a safe distance. I am perplexed by the choice of the word, “stubborn,” to describe parents who honorably answered to each and every offer, request and order submitted to them by the representatives of the ministries who brought claims against them.
The article in A.M. Costa Rica loosely ties facts, inaccuracies and opinions together to paint a picture void of opportunity for readers to question the actions of the public servants involved in this case. The article fails to question why the home of our friends was raided. The article fails to question the jurisdiction of local health ministries over undocumented foreigners. The article goes as far as suggesting that the determined spirit of the father to battle injustice played a part in the passing of his daughter. I beg of you, readers, to remember that the only reason Nikoline was navigating unfamiliar terrain was because her family had been driven out of their sanctuary by an order from a judge; the same judge who refused to present charges to or acknowledge our friend in the flesh who had been summonsed to his chamber.
With minimal effort of traveling to Puriscal and interviewing any one of the local people, the writer of the article published in A.M. Costa Rica could have learned and shared that this family was a loved and respected part of the community; a family who “properly schooled” their children to speak three languages, understand economics, production, science, history, law, appreciate literature by authors from across the globe and spans of time, and whose children have the manners and self discipline which allowed them to sing at the National Theatre with the highly acclaimed choir of Don Carlos Luis Fallas. With minimal effort the writer could have also shared that the oldest daughters traveled to nearby schools to aid local children with their English lessons.
That this family lacked modern transportation and relied on their own horses or hired taxis is a small testament to their unyielding dedication to abide by law. Included in the constructive notice submitted to EBAIS #4 in Puriscal, and published on this blog on July 2, 2011:
“I recognize the sovereignty of the state of CR as well as the sovereignty of the God of Israel. CR article 2.”
“I am attempting to conduct myself and arrange the conduct of my family in such a way as to follow the rules of both sovereigns for the purpose of being in accordance with rules of peaceful conduct and submission to well heeled government as well as faithful servants to the God of Israel. ‘Qui jure suo utitur, nemini facit injuriam.’ Acts 5:29”
The writer of the article in A.M. Costa Rica notes that our friends made repeated inquiry to the government officials to whether they are subservient to the God of Israel. That was just one of four questions that our friends repeatedly asked.
In the constructive notice, which was published on this blog on July 2, 2011, our friends also state:
“Be it known that we have acted in accordance with all laws and attended promptly to any charge, citation or summons presented to us. In any controversy, we present ourselves voluntarily and with out prejudice; that the matter may have a swift resolution. No undue force will be required in any dealing with us. Article 37”
I have just highlighted a few of the many pertinent points made in just one of the several documents that our friends have submitted to the ministries and courts. Our friends’ defense was replied to with coercion, threats, intimidation, denial of charges, and UNDUE FORCE.
Interestingly, an anonymous comment was posted to one of my blog entries by a member of a family living as residents in Costa Rica. Included in the lengthy comment left on November 24, 2011- “Our family lives in Costa Rica. We are residents, and we also homeschool and refuse vaccinations. Not only has this been 100% okay with the Costa Rican government they are fully aware of what we are doing and have no complaints.”
In which direction will the people point fingers of blame? At the family who is diligently asserting their right and duty to practice personal responsibility and follow God’s law, or to the moody tyrants who need to be reminded that they are in fact public servants under the scrutiny of the masses?
5 comments:
"...and follow God’s law, ....."
There is no such thing as "god" and therefore no "law" written anywhere. Laws are based on logic and reason, concepts lacking in the minds of the faithful so your diatribe has the same value as poking holes in clouds. Give up the idea of a "god" and get real.
I am happy to see someone stepping forward, albeit anonymously, with an interesting perspective illustrating the beauty of law over opinion. I can imagine that there are few who share the views of this commenter. However, as per the constitution of Costa Rica:
ARTICLE 75. The Roman Catholic and Apostolic Religion is the religion of the State, which contributes to its maintenance, without preventing the free exercise in the Republic of other forms of worship that are not opposed to universal morality or good customs. http://www.costaricalaw.com/legalnet/constitutional_law/engtit6.html
ARTICLE 25. The inhabitants of the Republic have the right of association for lawful purposes. No one may be compelled to form a part of any association whatsoever. http://www.costaricalaw.com/legalnet/constitutional_law/engtit4.html
Anonymous, the constitution protects your opinion. Just take care that your worship is “not opposed to universal morality or good customs.”
If God's law actually states we couldn't be citizens anywhere (we actually have examples to the opposite with Paul admitting he was Roman) I could see this. but it doesn't. They were here illegally, breaking both the law of the land, AND God's law which says we are to follow the laws of the land if they do not break our law.
I'm sure they were a nice kind family, but they were here illegally and when you do that.. you will most likely get burned.
It would be awesome if that's not the way it was. but to think differently is to live in a fairy tale world.
We can't just live where we please and do what we please. It's never been possible and it never will be. Even when Jesus reigns here on earth it will not be. If you live where he is you WILL FOLLOW HIS LAWS. There will always be a body that you must follow. we may not like it, but it is a fact of life.
I have lived happily and peacefully in Puriscal a few years short of a decade. It’s hard to believe this situation has taken place in my beloved town. I don’t spend a great deal of time reading AM Costa Rica but I’m very surprised any institution billing itself as a credible news source would allow such a poorly researched article to be published by a clearly biased “journalist”. Is it not a journalist’s duty to present a balanced story? His work is supposed to be an unbiased presentation of the news. Not a stage for his small minded and bigoted view on the differences of others. The author writes, “But documentation leading up to the tragic incident shows that the family at the time may have been trying to escape authorities who supposedly threatened to take Ms. Hill and her siblings away from the parents if they didn't allow for the government-mandated vaccinations or properly school their children.” Well, Andrew, did authorities in Puriscal threaten to remove the children from the care of their parents over vaccination shots or did they not? Considering the Hill children spoke multiple languages and tutored local children who attended the local public schools then who is incorrectly defining the education of the Hill children as improper? These types of details, unlike your bias against other religions, are actually important to the reader and how we are able to understand the story and form our own opinions.
The author goes on to make other slanted statements about the demeanor of the parents he has never met, their religion, and their lifestyle. What does their use of horses and lack of “modern transportation” have to do with anything? I know people with children who don’t have cars or horses. I know of people who don’t wear shoes when walking around central Puriscal. I know of people who live without electricity and this is all by choice and all in the area of little ol’ Puriscal. The question is so what? What valid point is he trying to make by exposing such pointless details?
I would also be curious to know what the family’s spiritual beliefs have to do with anything. Andrew claims their beliefs may have also played a part in the confrontations but if that is true the officials would be in the wrong; would they not? Costa Rica adopted a policy of freedom of religion and, legally, people cannot be persecuted for their religious beliefs. If this family is being driven from their home and having their house ransacked and robbed that would certainly be defined as persecution. Some people are subservient and pray to a male “God” in the sky. Others, or maybe the same people, claim Jesus was a real person and pray to him despite the fact that any person with an education beyond the eighth grade is aware of the history of the bible and all its kingly edits and the remarkable similarities between all religions and early paganism. People have different religious beliefs and those beliefs are protected by law.
Considering the one-sidedness of the article I suspect the ignorance of Andrew Kasper regarding this family and their struggles is only exceeded by his desire to misrepresent the details of a family’s tragedy in order to rev up readership. It doesn’t appear that an impasse over vaccinations is what caused their child's death. Apparently the death was caused by being pursued and threatened with the removal of their children. There is a difference between disagreeing on vaccinations and someone saying I am going to take your children away by force. The whole article appears to be a sloppy copy and paste job using carefully selected details borrowed from this blog to project an inaccurate image of parents caught between laws they don’t believe in and their desire to do what they feel is best for their children.
Reading through some of the posts I am shocked at the ignorance of some of the posters here. I would have to question the competence and validity of any person who would call on “God” or ‘Jesus” as your credibility or cite the law as the ultimate measure of right and wrong? Centering your argument against this family based on religion is unreasonable. For those claiming the “law” should be the defining factor in who is right and wrong please let me point out the ever changing status of many laws. Can you imagine why? Because most laws are written by majorities which are made up of people and people are fallible. How about the Caribbean blacks who, by law, were denied nationality and legally obligated to receive permission to venture out of the Limon province till 1948? You think to yourself, “Well that is ancient history. The world is a more sophisticated place now!” Let me present you with a few current laws that not only make little sense but put your health at risk. How about mandatory water and salt fluoridation? Check with you local AYA. Fluoride, which is a poison and deadly when taken in large doses, is, by law, put into your water supply in Costa Rica as well as all salt that is to be used for human consumption. The reasoning is to lower the incidence of cavities yet, according to an article written by Shahrazad Encinias Vela of A.M. Costa Rica "Rice eaten here does not undergo test for heavy metals" (and he actually took the time to quote sources and do research without projecting his own biases), the same law makers do not demand testing for rice which nearly everyone in Costa Rica eats. I find it strange the government should be more worried about cavities than cancer-causing heavy metals found in rice grown in Costa Rica. Don’t you? I don’t want to misrepresent myself. I believe in just and sensible laws. Without them we would live in chaos and disorder. But because it is law does not excuse one from measuring its correctness and then pursing the correct course of action.
The bottom line is does the lid fit the pot? Are vaccinations a valid reason for a family to be threatened with the loss of their children and having their home ransacked and robbed? They may not have had residency but my understanding is that is not why they are being harassed and threatened with having their children taken away. The main issue seems to be mandatory vaccinations clashing with freedom of religion and parents rights to choose what is best for their child or children. Personally I don’t think everything that has happened to them is appropriate considering the perceived offense.
Post a Comment