Part 25: More Reasons to Support the Parental Rights Amendment

There are several other reasons why "only" the Parental Rights Amendment is sufficient to protect our children. Saying "no" to the UN CRC only postpones the trickle of international law already invading. Many of our nation's leaders already hold to the above described philosophies (that government knows what is best for your children and should impose it on your family), and therefore cannot be trusted in the area. The Parental Rights Amendment sets an enduring boundary of protection like other amendments have done for all future generations. Then we are able to and must stand up for our rights in the legislative and judicial arena with the sure footing of a constitutional right. Ideally we should be able to stand on our God ordained rights, but our government no longer recognizes the Bible as a standard of law and ethics. (We must work to change this also, but until we do so, we must approach parental rights with an amendment). Even the conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonio Scalia says that unwritten rights cannot be protected in the courts when he was discussing parental rights in the 2000 Supreme Court case of Troxel v. Granville. He bases this on a strict, literal interpretation of the constitution. This is in contrast to the "living constitution" theory of interpretation. With our new Supreme Court justices, we are likely in even greater danger. Therefore we have a multitude of reasons to support the Parental Rights Amendment to the US Constitution. We cannot wait until we lost any more influence in our government or it may be too late.

Breathalyzers for Adolescents at School

While many of you don't need another reason to persevere in homeschooling, I want you to be aware of a case of an adolescent's civil liberties being violated in Virginia. This article describes how an adolescent was forced to undergo a breathalyzer test at school when two unidentified students reported that she was drinking alcohol at school. Despite her mother being a school teacher and easily accessible, no one contacted the mother.

This "suspect state" in schools creates opportunities for further civil liberty infringements. Parents must say no to the disregard for these liberties before we lose even more of our freedoms.

Where will your adolescent daughter get abortion advice?

While scanning the internet for parental rights articles, I ran across an article describing a potentially concerning site, MariaTalks. The site itself is centered on an 18yo girl who provides sex related information and calls herself a "sexpert". The article which alerted me to this site was primarily concerned about the advice teens will receive from this site, specifically about abortion. I will provide two excerpts from the site to help you understand the problem this site poses:

"What’s important is how you feel about it {abortion}. One of my friends who had an abortion told me that it was a difficult decision to make, but she felt that it was the best choice she could make for herself, her boyfriend, her family, and her future."

"Can I get an abortion in Massachusetts if I’m under 18?
Ok, I totally know that this information can sound pretty intimidating and overwhelming, but I promise you the reality of getting an abortion is much easier than it sounds here. It may be really hard for you to imagine talking to either your parents or a judge about getting an abortion, but there are people who can help you through it."

Actually, the important thing is not how you feel about abortion. The important thing is whether it is right or wrong. But even by their standard here, they have forgotten how women often feel later. The second excerpt basically aids a teen in obtaining an abortion without parental consent. The existence of these abortion resources, not to mention other information on the site, should cause parents to take notice. We cannot sit back and allow the world to educate our children on sex. We must do the education and prevent them feeling like they need to look elsewhere for more information.

Oh, if this were not enough, the site is run by an AIDS Action Committee, although in my opinion this goes much further than addressing that issue alone. Could I tell you anything more annoying? Yes, the Massachusetts' Department of Public Health is funding this program with a 100,000 dollar grant. Government money spent to promote abortion and sex. Just wonderful !

Part 24: The Final Answer to the UN CRC

Parental Rights.Org believes that we must close the door forever on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child by ratifying the Parental Rights Amendment. Before explaining why we believe this is the best option, please read the amendment itself:

Proposed Parental Rights Amendment

For the US Constitution

SECTION 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

SECTION 2
Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

SECTION 3
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

This amendment is important because it provides explicit constitutional language to protect parental rights from government interference except in rare and extreme circumstances such as abuse and prevents international law such as the UN CRC from taking away those parental rights. The language for sections one and two are taken from two past US Supreme Court cases which ruled in favor of parental rights: Pierce v. Society of Sisters in 1925 and Wisconsin v. Yoder in 1972. Therefore the language was crafted by our own Supreme Court justices in the past and has a long history of legal understanding in the courts.

The amendment establishes parental rights as a fundamental right, the highest standard short of an absolute right which goes too far (an absolute right would protect child abusers from prosecution). It then adds section three which protects American parents from international law both in US courts and International Courts (according to Vienna Convention of Treaties, the highest standard for international law.) This section also protects against the threat of Customary International Law which I described earlier.

Next week, you will learn several more reasons that only the Parental Rights Amendment is an adequate response to the UN CRC and the worldview behind it.

The Opposition's Trumpet Call

I occasionally channel surf before bed, just to remind myself of the vacous content of today's programming. If I had a nickel for every crime show, I would retire very soon. However, last week, something struck me as different as I clicked from one crime scene to another. A commercial caused me to backpedal and watch with much greater horror than any of the murders on CSI. What could overcome such numbness to violence that our TVs produce?......

The 30 seconds of fear were words spoken in the language of human rights for children. These words to the untrained ear tweak the heartstrings like a St. Jude Children's Hospital commercial. To my ears, trained to discern the deception inherent in the words, "child rights", horror resounded as I realized the propaganda was beginning in earnest. This commercial if left unchallenged would convince millions of Americans, even parents, that we must join a false battle for children's futures. The need for the message of parental freedoms and the need for their defense echoed like a rumbling earthquake in my soul.

Trumpets are sounding for our opponents, calling others to join their fight. Will you join me in blowing our own call to arms?

To see the website procaiming the commerical's deception, go HERE. You will find the same rights that the UN CRC unabashedly promotes. They are not rights... They are definitely not freedoms... THEY ARE SLAVERY to the STATE!

Who is watching your homeschooling?

If you live in the jurisdiction of the 13th Chancery district court in Mississippi, then Judge Joe Dale Walker is trying to watch your homeschooling, that's who! Earlier in April, Judge Walker issue a court order demanding school attendance officer provide a list of all homeschooling students in their districts. Why does he want such an unconstitutionally obtained list. There is some evidence that Judge Walker wants to crack down on those using homeschooling as a cover for deliquency, but it is quite interesting that his order does not seem to have originated in any specific court case. Apparently the mood hit him and he ordered it...
Thankfully, HSLDA responded and asked a higher court to block Judge Walker's court order. The higher court ordered the judge to respond by April 18th, explaining his actions. We are now waiting for the conclusion of this standoff which could have far reaching implications for many other sitations. If a judge can just demand a list of names such as Tea Party members, a specific religious group, or you name it, then our privacy will be non-existent.
For more information, go HERE.

How should we respond as Americans, as parents and grandparents?

Winston Churchill's words from a different era are appropriate to describe the urgent need for our response.

"Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong-these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history."

We cannot mistake the signs of a present war regardless of the silence in which our opponents shroud their aims and actions. Churchill knew that a time would come when the Allies' opportunity would be past and no amount of effort could salvage a victory. We are in a similar predicament with the move towards government control of parenting. First, we must respond immediately by urging our Senators to cosponsor SR 99 if they are not already sponsors (GO HERE to find out) (please note that both of Tennessee's Senators are now sponsors despite Sen. Alexander not being updated on the website). This Senate resolution opposes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We have 34 sponsors which thwart the 67 needed for treaty ratification, but we want more commitments. Only one defector is needed to ratify the treaty, and therefore we want as many sponsors as we can obtain.

This is the first step to derail the UN CRC, but more is needed. Return soon for the most complete response to this threat against our children's futures.

Part 17: Specific Rights in the CRC

In my last post, I focused on the foundation principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. (please go to my blog to review this). On this foundation, the drafters of this UN treaty built other rights that define further the best interest of the child and the areas where government can intervene.

1. Right to Privacy even in your own home. In Japan, this means that parents are restricted from accessing their children's emails, text messages, and chat rooms conversations.

2. Right to choose their own religion without parental coercion. According to the words of Professor Van Beuren, one of the treaty's major contributors as described on the website in the article "Nannies in Blue Beret's": "Unlike earlier treaties, the Convention on the Rights of the Child does not include a provision providing for parents to have their children educated in conformity with their parents' beliefs. In other words, she believes that we should protect children from their parent's religious coercion.

3. Right to education, that the government decides is best for them. This means an education that includes the principles of tolerance, which we know is being used against Christians. It includes exposure to a variety of national and international sources of information of MASS MEDIA. Consider what the government's opinion of what is best. One of the founding pillars of the American education system was Dewy, who said, "There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes" This also opens us to the dangers of "national education standards

4. Right to health care, including abortion rights. Just look at how the UN has used the UN CEDAW to promote abortion rights and access to contraception for children without parental consent in approximately 60 countries. They twisted that treaty's wording to accomplish that feat. Right now our government is sending our money to Kenya to lobby for repeal of anti-abortion laws. Of course, our children will be subjected to this agenda as well. It also means government must provide health care. We must ask "Who pays?" --- WE ALL do! Basically, Obamacare for children.

5. Right to protection from guns indirectly. Follow this logic. The UN has considerable propaganda saying that guns harms children.If we pass the CRC and guns are bad for children, therefore we must rid our country of guns. Once again, all done in the name of a good deed for the people

Response to Come Out and Play

I have a lengthy response to "Come Out and Play"'s recent comments and decided to make an entire post after some problems with trying to just make them "comments". I have included her comments with mine following the "----"'s.

Dear Come out and play,

"Your country's constitution separates religion and state so any Biblical arguments have no constitutional locus bar that rights are endowed by the Creator."

---- First, I think you are misunderstanding my perspective and audience. My focus on a Biblical understanding of the Constitution is directed at Christians and therefore encouraging them to use a Biblically based worldview to evaluate the Constitution, domestic law, international law, and their behavior in response to each of these. Ultimately, God’s Word stands above the Constitution or any other law of man as the final standard for a Christian’s actions. I am encouraging Christians to respond Biblically to this issue. It makes no difference if the Constitution recognizes it or not.

----Second, have you read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence lately? While I grant that the Constitution does not contain this wording, I wonder if the authors thought it unnecessary to repeat what was so well written into the Declaration of Independence.

--- Finally, your theory of separation of religion and state are subject to the widespread deception of our day. This phrase is not found in our Constitution. The Bill of Rights does say “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Wasn’t it Thomas Jefferson who used this phrase, “separation of church and state” in a letter to the Danbury Baptists. A personal letter, even from Jefferson, hardly qualifies for a ratified component of the Supreme Law of the Land.

---Back to an earlier point in this paragraph. If the UN CRC prohibits the free exercise of religion that includes the education of children along that religion’s lines, then it contradicts the Bill of Rights. I could go on, but I believe my points clearly state my case.


""practically equal" is loose terminology. Either it is equal or superior - other than that you have no worries?"

--- Since you want to be picky on the wording, permit me to expound further on my proper use of the word “practically” by defining my terms. Depending on which legal expert you consult, some place treaties (as ratified by the protocol of Article 6 of our Constitution) on par with Congressional law and others place treaties above the law, only subservient to the Constitution. Others would say that treaties can alter Constitutional provisions. Reid v. Covert in the 1950’s said that treaties override implicit Constitutional rights. This means, that unless the right is explicitly stated in the Constitution, the given treaty can take that right away. Parental rights are currently an unwritten, or implied right, that could be lost through the treaty process. The majority opinion of those in power is that “supreme law of the Land”, as stated below in Article 6 of our Constitution, means that ratified treaties are equal to the Constitution. Others make a reasonable case that this phraseology refers to their desire to uphold treaties made prior to the Constitution’s acceptance (i.e. 1776-1789). Regardless of opinions, “practically” speaking, treaties are “practically” at least equal to the constitution.

Portion of Article 6 “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”


"The USA signed the UN Charter, in its explicit terms, the superior item of international treaty law, its effects can be binding even on non-signatory states."

--- If we are bound to follow the letter of the law without ratification, why not just wait for others to ratify and avoid the trouble of a Senate vote? No, we are a sovereign nation, free to enter into treaties or not to enter into treaties. You obviously subscribe to Customary International Law, which states in legal terms exactly what you stated above. While you are accusing the US of missing the mark, please look over the numerous egregious violations of these signatory countries. You will get much more bang for your buck there.

"Let us look at the US paying its dues - for quite some years the UN was in arrears, yet its duty was to pay. That was remedied last year."

--- This is essentially a rabbit trail, unrelated to this treaty. Regardless, you might want to research how many countries are in arrears. According to a Reuters article (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE59K5Y520091021), only 22 countries were paid in full as of October 2009.

"It is in breach, along with every other nation, of Articles 43, 45 and 47, concerning the establishment of armed and airforce contingents for peacekeeping and a Military Staff Committee. I see no challenge in your courts, this has been so since 1945."

--- So? What does that have to do with the UN CRC?


part 2
The USA has ratified 2 of the Protocols to the Convention on the use of children in armed forces and prostitution and exploitation. No argument advanced there against such a process.

----These were limited protocols in agreement with the basic law of our nation. We therefore agreed to do what we were already doing. While you are thinking about this, consider all the countries which have not signed these optional protocols. Are they therefore “for” children as soldiers and for child prostitution? Please take aim at them where real harm is occurring.

"I also have some problem with the use of the term "parental rights". This has been advanced in response to the idea of there being children's rights enshrined in a treaty and signed and ratified by the US? That Convention is explicit in what these children's rights are, they are detailed and set down."

"You use 'parental rights' in the plural, and make emotional appeals as to their defence. But surely you need to state what you believe these to BE? What ARE parental rights, in the plural?"

--- Again, nitpicky and silly, but I’ll play along. I wonder if you are a parent. If so, you might at least pause before asking such a question. A parent would already know by experience that no list could ever encompass the comprehensive scope of parenting rights or responsibilities. A parent would say “right-S” if only to emphasize the wide ranging nature of parenting.

--- Furthermore, any attempt to define parenting would undoubtedly leave out something. In the legal world, this “left out” facet would then not be legally protected. In other words, “not listed” means “non-existent”. As the amendment states, “The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.” Parental rights are the liberty to “direct the upbringing and education of their children”. This language comes from prior US Supreme Court Cases upholding parental rights. If it has to do with “care” or “education”, it is protected. If it was good enough for the Supreme Court, why not for you?

---If that is not good enough, look at the converse of the CRC for parental rights: right to educate your child, right to direct their speech, right to direct their choice of religion, right to limit their privacy, right to direct their associations, right to direct their media sources, and more. The CRC has hit on many of the high points.

"Unless you specify, you have no case for a Constitutional amendment. If you mean, for example that:"

"In the raising and disposition of their children, parents have total authority in all matters regarding the upbringing, welfare and treatment of those children" then you must be explicit. That I would call the 'owned chattel' approach, arguable I suppose, emotionally-laden, maybe has religious sanction (and by no means just Christianity or even Islam).

"Does your Constitution support such a claim? Discuss. Does the Bible? Likewise."

---Our Constitution does not provide what you describe above and neither does the Bible. You describe an absolute right when you use the word “total”. A fundamental right as defined in our country’s law is not absolute. Our organization is not advocating for “total authority”, just a fundamental right. We would oppose any law that proposed absolute authority. Therefore, you are misunderstanding us, or you are intentionally misleading in your rhetoric here.

---The Bible places the primary responsibility for child rearing on the parents, not the state, not even the church. That is clear and implies that parents must have the freedom or authority to carry out these responsibilities.

"So far, without such a claim being put to the people of the US, I think you will find that neither State nor Federal law supports a notion that kids are totally subservient to parents and have no rights under the Constitution which in those terms, of rights, I gather is superior to state constitutions? "

--This statement is somewhat unclear, so unless you expound, I will leave it alone.


Sincerely,
Eric Potter MD

Judge Eviscerates Parental Notification Law in Alaska

Alaskans voted last year to pass a parental notification law, forcing physicians to notify a teenager's parents before performing an abortion unless an abusive situation was present. Superior Court Judge John Suddock just recently ruled that the law can stand, but without the penalities for compliance failure. So he left a law without any penalties for enforcement which is obviously worthless. Abortion practitioners who violate the law cannot be held accountable without any penalty of prison or fines or even lawsuits from parents.

As the source article from OneNewsNow notes, even "Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade, voted himself to uphold parental involvement laws, both consent and notice laws, that had criminal penalties attached to them." Alaska has become the only state with laws requiring parental notification that have no penalty associated with it.

We are faced with a continuous assault on the right of parents to even be involved in major decisions faced by their children. We can not wait any longer to stop this erosion of our freedom to parent.


For more information on this story go to HERE or HERE.

The Gay Agenda in Schools

A Renew America article from 2006 tells the story of a Massachusetts parent who fought against the public school's refusal to follow state law (Parental Notification Law (M.G.L. Ch. 71, Sec. 32A). Why did he have to go to court in order to force the school to follow state law? The school refused to notify him when his 6 year old's class would be addressing sexuality topics. Imagine, the parent having to force the school to follow the law. Even more strange, but not unexpected, the ACLU fought against him. They fought to protect the rights of teachers to teach about sex and homosexuality (the book "King and King" and other such occurences).

This is the agenda which we must stand against. Occasionally, David's win against Goliath's, but more often these battles require an army of determined parents working in unity. The more we work together, the more probable our victory and the deeper our gain into the enemy's territory. We need your help in the mundane (i.e. forwarding these newsletters and sharing the information with others) and the more sacrificial ways (volunteering as speakers or hosting viewings of "The Child"). Most importantly, we need your constant prayers for all our children's futures.

Part 12: The Emerging Worlview that Threatens Our Children, Section 2

Many so-called experts in pediatrics, education, social services, and other child related professions hold to this philosophy. One major example is the American Academy of Pediatrics. Working as a pediatrician for several years, I believed this deception until I realized what was really happening. Parents are slowly, but surely convinced that they need help from experts. Parents are trained to feel incompetent. To some degree even the pediatricians don’t recognize what they are doing.

Another powerful example is the US Department of Education. It also covertly spreads the lie that “teachers know better than parents”. Now we are facing the growth of national standards in education which will do little for math or science or reading. Instead, we will have a federally mandated curriculum for anti-bullying and tolerance which degrades Christianity.

In the introductory quiz (last blog post), I asked what is parens patriae. This is the legal term that says parents lose the right to direct their children’s education once the child enters school grounds. Parents essentially abdicate any say in the process under this legal attack on parental rights. Several stories from affected families will further elucidate this legal principle. A family moves to a Mississippi small town and enrolls their child in public school. The mother is told that the child is not allowed to walk 2 blocks to school. One day, the mother walks to school to pick up her child and is told that she must go home and return with her car if she wants her child. In a similarly egregious example, a child was sent from school by taxi to get an abortion without parental knowledge. In other schools, a debate is raging over what age schools can begin offering condoms to children.

Part 11: The Emerging Worldview that Threatens our Future Generations, Section 1

There are three different aspects of this worldview which synergize to threaten our children. First, much of the international community and many inside our own country promote the philosophy that the government is the one who will make the best choices for children, NOT PARENTS. Second, they believe that government and its authorities know what is “best for the child” even more so than parents. Therefore, they should intervene to guarantee this “best”. Finally, this fits with the idea of a Nanny Sate that always knows best and attempts to construct an externally controlled utopia. It is externally controlled in that it uses laws and punishment versus internal control of will and desire in a morally directed society.

Who believes in this philosophy? Surprisingly, many state leaders, US congressmen, and state department leaders hold to this philosophy. Some have even spoke this aloud in our halls of government One of Tennessee’s own state Senators stated publicly that he did not for the life of him see what was wrong with the UN CRC, which is the most explicit expression of this philosophy in the world (HANG ON, I will soon explain the details). Several in the Tennessee House and Tennessee Senate voted AGAINST a state resolution opposing the UN CRC last year although it eventually passed both houses. Some have even written books about a village raising a child.

Having children myself, I agree that parents need a community around them. However, the parents should choose who influences the child, not a government or its agencies. I liked what someone else said in that it takes a tribe, not a village. Parents choose the tribe, or community that surrounds their children, not the government.

Part 10: Quiz Intermission

At this point in my August 7th speech, I stopped for questions and dialogue.

Questions to you, the reader:

Who is responsible for a child’s education according to the Bible?

What are the goals of education for Christian families?

Can a secular state teach morality or religion fairly?

Does neutrality exist?


If you aren’t sure, go back and read the prior posts…..

And now, a little quiz to introduce the next section…

Who knows what is best for children?

It takes a _________ to raise a child.

What is parens patriae?

A right is a) opposite of your left, b) freedom within boundaries, c) guaranteed services from the government.

Response to Questions on Last Posting

(In response to comments on my post "A Quiet Threat to Homeschooling")


Dear Come Out to Play,

That children have rights is not disputed. The extent, nature, and definition of those rights are the actual hotbeds of debate. Permit me to explain my stand in this debate by first pointing to the source of all rights, God and His Word. Only with that foundation can one determine the rights and duties of any group, including parents, children, and the government.

Psalm 127:3-5, as below, says that children are a "heritage", a "reward", and a "blessing" all from the Lord.
3 Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord,
the fruit of the womb a reward.
4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
are the children of one’s youth.
5 Blessed is the man
who fills his quiver with them!
He shall not be put to shame
when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.

So, children come gratuitously from God. Thus parents will be held accountable by God on how they raise their children (consider Matthews 18:6, the millstone around the neck). Deuteronomy 6 and Ephesians 6 also clearly state commands to parents concerning how to raise their children. Commands imply accountability. Parents are therefore made stewards by God.

Stewardship implies parental rights (freedoms to exercise stewardship) AND parental responsibilities to fulfill that Biblical stewardship. As a consequence of these parental “responsibilities”, children can claim “rights” in the sense that they can point (or someone can point for them) to God’s commands directed at parents. This results both in their sharing some rights with adults (i.e. to life, to worship as they wish, etc.) and having some rights beyond those of adults (i.e. to have parents provide for them, to have parents to protect them, to have parents guide/discipline them). Of note, the shared rights may also differ in extent (i.e. limits on freedom of association, on freedom of speech) in comparison to adult rights. Then, as the child matures, the rights also mature.

Based on the evidence and logic above, I will be praying for parents to recognize the source of their children (God) and to recognize ALL the implications of the stewardship placed upon them. If this prayer is answered, there is no need to pray for children’s rights. The fulfillment of their “rights” will come in the fulfillment of parental stewardship. As a corollary to the above prayer, I will also be praying that no government power will interfere with the exercise of parental stewardship nor the enjoyment of the blessing of children. When government interferes with Biblical exercise of parental stewardship, it is the duty of parents as stewards to resist this interference. Even if the government claims to be protecting a child’s rights, if they are not using the Biblical guidelines, they are acting wrongly. However, if the government, for example, were to interfere in order to protect a child’s right to life (if it is threatened by anyone, including a parent), it would be acting rightly. Our current system approximates this latter situation in prosecuting child abuse. The proposals of international child rights advocates are basing their definition of child rights not on Biblical guidelines, but on their secular philosophies. These must be resisted and battled against. I am not praying against all governmental actions taken against parents, just those that contradict Biblical guidelines.

In regards to the US Constitution, it grants none of these rights. It has no power to grant anything. It can only recognize rights and pledge to protect both the above stated rights of parents and the above state rights of children.

I hope this answers your objections/admonitions as well as clarifies what seems to be a misunderstanding of my stand. If not, I look forward to your continued dialogue.

Part 8: The Role of the State in Raising Children

The Bible only permits the state to have the role of punishing wrong doers in Romans 13. The state does have a duty to protect children from criminal actions, but it does not have the jurisdiction to dictate how children are raised in a non-criminal family environment. This idea of jurisdiction is similar to the theology of Abraham Kuyper, a great Dutch theologian and politician from around 1900. He separated the spheres of authority between the family and the state, as well as other spheres of authority based on his study of the Bible. While he saw God as ruling over all of life, different spheres had their own jurisdictions and hierarchies of earthly authorities. Church, family, the state, labor, and other areas of life were mostly interdependent but separate spheres. The family sphere, thanks to our lackadaisical attitude, has allowed intrusion inch by inch over many decades. The state should not intrude into another sphere no more than the church should run the state nor the family run the church. This is even more true in our own contemporary culture as the state becomes more secular.

Raising children is a religious enterprise which if entrusted to a secular government will fail to produce religion except worship of the state. Not only will the secular state not teach any form of religion, it will teach against religion. There is not neutrality in regards to what is taught in school. Either all things are taught as relating to God as creator and father. Or they are taught to either replace God or to ignore God. An education neutral to all religion is thus atheistic by definition and practical implication. Furthermore, one of the mantras of our culture is tolerance. Feigned neutrality and tolerance go hand in hand. Teaching all religion is seen as good, all except one, Christianity. Christianity is viewed as intolerant and therefore its true form cannot be taught as children must be free to choose for themselves. Since, in their view, there is no private sphere of the family, all is public and open to their regulation. They are compelled not by neutrality, but by anti-Christian intent.

In summary, from a Biblical and Christian perspective, it should be abundantly clear that parents are Biblically commanded to raise and educate children, not the secular civil government or state. With this Biblical foundation in the forefront, I want to further clarify our parental freedoms from a legal standpoint.

Part 7: Biblical Basis For Parenting, Section Three

With all this in mind, what is the purpose of this command? The purpose is simply the glorification of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost through the salvation and sanctification of our children by the means of parents. We are the means to this end even as we work our own salvation with fear and trembling. Therefore it is Biblical that parents educate, train, and discipline their children I order to obey God and to glorify Him.

Now, consider a tangential question to stimulate though along the lines of why I writing this piece. “What if the civil authority interferes with the ability to carry out this command?” I say that we must defend the family sphere and say no to Caesar. Peter and Paul both exercised civil disobedience when told to stop preaching the gospel. We are likely reaching the point where the government will soon tell us to stop preaching the gospel to our children. Many are already advocating to prohibit parent’s religious education. What will we do then? Some will say that tomorrow has enough worries of its own, “what about now?” Should we try to stop this before it comes to requiring outright civil disobedience? Do you tell your kids to toe the line of sin or to stay three steps back. Why would we want to allow the legal situation to reach that point.

My actions are my attempt to fulfill this command of training my children. I am not claiming that my specific methods of defending my parental freedoms are explicitly Biblically commanded. However, I believe an answer from parents is demanded regarding how they raise their children. We will answer to God for our parenting. Later, I will elaborate on how we can prevent the educational climate from going too far.

Part 6: Biblical Basis For Parenting, Section Two

If that is not clear enough, read Deuteronomy 6:6-7 “And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.” Obviously, being from the Old Testament, it was directed at the Israelites. Can we then just ignore it today? Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the law, but to uphold it in Matthew 5:17-20. I believe that the principle of this command is still binding on parents based on Ephesians 6 and numerous other verses in the Bible. Therefore, parents today are still bound to teach the next generation born into their family. These scripture references clearly indicate that God’s commands include religious instruction as we see in these verses. By the description given, this is more than just sending them to Sunday School or vacation Bible School, but the responsibility of parents in the midst of daily life. Sunday School and VBS are not inherently wrong, just inadequate for obedience if parents ignore actively participating in the religious education of their children.

In order to provide more New Testament scripture, read I Timothy 3:2,4,and 5 “Therefore an overseer must be above reproach … He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” Unless we are willing to read this as saying that only deacons and elders must know how to manage their own household, we are bound to strive for obedience to this command. Digging deeper into the original working is once again helpful. “Managing his own household” comes from prostEnai, or to “preside over”. The definition of “preside” is “to exercise guidance, direction, or control” (Merriam Webster Free Dictionary). There are other verses I could mention to further solidify the claim that parents are commanded to nurture, train, teach, and to preside over their children. I hope that these are enough to convince you of your Biblical duty.

Message from my newsletter....

COPIED from my newsletter, (no time to edit)

Good morning,
I just sent out a newsletter in the last few days, but I am writing this because today is election day. I could endorse specific candidates, but instead I want to focus only on principles in this newsletter. Candidates will come and go, but principles, which guide our lives and which should guide our votes, should remain steadfast and based on truth. Therefore, this election is no different than any other election. Each opportunity that God affords us to cast our vote, is an opportunity to influence not only our future, but the future of generations to come. Each election is an opportunity, or maybe better yet, a DUTY to vote on the principles which guide our lives all other days of the year. Here is my advice for you today:
First, consider your principles and the basis for them. For my family, the basis is the Word of God. Therefore, one of the principles that will guide my vote is how the result of the election will affect my freedom to follow Ephesians 6:4. Will the elected official protect my freedom to raise my children by Biblical truth or will the official restrict it?
Second, study the candidates by not only what they say, but what they have done. Their character is just as important as what they say, if not more so. Without a trustworthy character, their words ring a hollow tone of false hopes, if not outright deception. Ask yourself if you will continue to have freedom of directing your children's upbringing under their authority. Your vote has consequences.
Finally, only after you consider this, should you leave your home in order to vote. Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that this is the only rule by which to measure a candidate. I am just stating my firm conviction that in the long run, this standard is one of the most important criteria to consider.

The LGBT Agenda for Your Children

"Pro-gay books are being read in elementary school classrooms, teachers are being mandated to use gender neutral language, gay activists have been welcomed in the White House, and young evangelicals see no problem with same-sex marriage."

While not focusing on parental rights, this article from The Christian Post touches on one front in the fight for parental freedom, the LGBT agenda. The education establishment is forcing this re-sexualization on our nation's children is insidious, yet destructive ways. Transgender students are allowed to choose their bathroom. Teachers are told to address the class as "friends" rather than "boys and girls". Sexuality surveys are being passed out to children asking about gender and sexual activity.


PS: Be thankful if your children have not been exposed to this yet, but don't wait until your own children, your nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and neighbor's children are assaulted with this attempted indoctrination. Do something to stand up for your parental rights. Then talk to other parents and open their eyes to this agenda before the damage is too far gone.