Y-Peer, Advocates for Youth Abortion and Legal Prostitution

None of you likely know what or who "Y-Peer" is. Neither did I until tonight. Y-Peer is a United Nations Population Fund initiative organizing youth across the globe as advocates and educators in the area of sexual and reprodutive health. Many believe that the crisis of youth sexually transmitted diseases necessitates such leadership by our youth. Prima facie, this approach brushes aside the primary role parents should play in the education of their children. Beyond that, a statement by this multi-continent organization implies that it supports abortion for "youth" and decriminilization of prostitution and drug abuse. Further below is a quote from the organization confirmed on their own website which provides evidence in supoprt of this allegation. As often is the case, such objectionable ideas are buried within a gauntlet of less offensive, even sympathy producing issues. These are the forces which are facing us as parents and which threaten to indoctrinate our children with sexual filth and perversity. For more commentary on this organization's controversial statement, go HERE or HERE. (Even if you don't read the link, clicking on it will raise its rating in internet search engines)

“Young women’s health is threatened by policies and services that do not provide life-saving access to family planning and contraception. It is vital to implement key effective measures in the continuum of care for maternal health, including access to safe abortion...The rights of marginalized young people, including those who are living with HIV, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, young men who have sex with men, sex workers, injecting drug users, disabled youth, young people in crisis situations and other vulnerable youth continue to be violated through policies and programmes that criminalize them and ignore their specific needs.”

Sexual Freedom and Your Child

The International Planned Parenthood Federation has released some alarming new educational material concerning the sexual rights of youths according to international law. "Exclaim!" and "I Decide" have been released as the the UN Youth conference is nearing and provide some scary insights into what Planned Parenthood believes is best for our children. I am printing out Exclaim for closer reading as I type this, but a LifeNews article, which is what originally sparked my curiosity, provided some initial understanding of this sexual indoctrination propaganda.


Here is a quote from the article describing Exclaim!


"The guide also contains some self-contradictions. It cites the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,Article 5 that states, "Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents." However, the guide insists that parents and the State are legally responsible for promoting a worldview and values that are held distinctively by IPPF. The guide demands liberalized abortion, self-identified (rather than biological) gender on identification papers, unrestricted access to contraceptives, and various other contentious claims."


The article also describes how Exclaim! uses the Convention on the Rights of the Child to promote sexual rights for youth:

"Although no right to sex or sexual pleasure exists in binding international documents, the guide goes through a list of human rights found in international law and explains how they can be read as sexual rights. Under the "right to know and learn" includes "bringing an end to abstinence-only sex education programs and promoting evidence informed approaches to comprehensive sexuality education.""



After reading Exclaim! and I Decide, I hope to provide further insight into these horrendous educational instruments. STAY TUNED!

NEA to UN: More Graphic Sex-Ed Needed

(Copied from national office newsletter)

Perhaps you thought public school sex education programs are graphic enough as it is. Not so, according to a statement by the National Education Association's (NEA) Diane Schneider to a U.N. panel last week. According to a report by C-FAM, Schneider told the audience at a panel on combating homophobia and transphobia that "[o]ral sex, masturbation and orgasms need to be taught in education," and that anyone opposing homosexuality is "stuck in a binary box that religion and family create."

In other words, schools need to rescue children from "indoctrination" by their parents and religion, and the U.N. should see that they do. Schneider also "claimed that the idea of sex education remains an oxymoron if it is abstinence-based, or if students are still able to opt out," the article states.

ParentalRights.org disagrees with the notion that schools know better than parents what is best for their children or what their children can handle. We disagree with the idea that schools should undo all the character building and value instilling that parents do at home. And we adamantly oppose the view that the United Nations should take a role in any of it. And we know you do, too.

For more information, go HERE.

Part 20: International Hindsight

You might now object that these predictions are all theoretical. None of this could happen in America. Hopefully, the past few years of governmental intrusions into our lives have awoken you to the reality we now face that was previously inconceivable. If not, there is still hope for convincing you. In understanding the potential effects of this threat in our country, we have the benefit of hindsight by looking at other countries that did ratify the CRC.

We can look at resulting laws in other countries and the recommendations by the UN Committee formed by this treaty. This committee evaluates countries on a rotating basis, providing feedback on their compliance with the treaty. I earlier mentioned Japan where child privacy is so strongly protected; parents are restricted from their children's e-mail, texting, and chat rooms. In Sweden, time outs and spanking are not allowed and homeschooled children can be removed from parents. In the Netherlands, their idea of sex education begins at age 4. The committee told Belize that they needed to set up formal avenues for children to protect their parent' violations of these rights. In a almost laughable recommendation, the committee told Maldova, one of the world's poorest countries, to set up avenues for their children to be educated about their rights... while they are starving? The following final example was thankfully avoided. A governmental report, called the Badman Report was calling for stricter restrictions on homeschooling in Britain. They wanted the right to have social workers interview children in these homes without parents present. Yes, I said WITHOUT parents present.

Do we want this treaty to change American families for generations to come? If we are not careful, we may one day

become like France where school lunches are dictated by the government and parents are even told what to serve for dinner at home (Time article Feb 23, 2010)

Part 16: Foundational Articles of UN CRC

Leaving behind generalities of treaties, let’s look at the CRC itself. It has 3 foundational articles that you should be aware of. Article 3 binds the federal government to always seek the “best interest of the child”. Surely I wouldn’t argue with that. Article 18 says that governments should recognize parental responsibilities to seek the best interest of the children. It also says that governments should provide appropriate assistance to families in their parental responsibilities. So we have responsibilities and they have responsibilities to recognize those responsibilities, is that good or bad? Article 12 says that a child has a right to express his or her own views freely in all matters affecting them whether judicial or administrative. Everyone gets a say, what is so bad about that?

While these seem relatively safe MAYBE even good, a few questions must be addressed. For article 3, who decides what is “best”? – There has to be a gold standard by which to measure? Their answer is that the government and their experts decide, not you as the parents. For article 18, when does the government decide to intervene? -- when they decide the parent is not carrying out their definition of the best interest of the child. The parent is logically guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof is on the parents rather than the government. For article 12, who decides when child and parents disagree on what is best? Government. As I said earlier, the children will simply have an unfeeling master. It is not actually the child who gains freedom to decide, but the government replaces the parents in the name of children’s freedom. Whenever the government promises benefit in the same breath as asking us to give up a right, we should stand firm against such tyranny.

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

Part 15: The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Itself

Now we come to the discussion of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child itself. Several times I have mentioned it in the prior postings. Now I will spend some time discussing this treaty after having provided you with a Biblical foundation for parental duties and hopefully a better understanding of the worldview which is threatening this Biblical perspective.

The first two philosophies which I discussed in recent posts find their tangible fulfillment regarding children in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is a UN treaty, completed in 1989 and signed by 192 of 193 countries, that binds ratifying countries as any other contract does so in a business situation. Our country’s constitution binds us in even stronger terms to this type of agreement than in those other 192 countries. In Article 6 of the US Constitution, any treaty ratified by the US Senate becomes quote “Supreme Law of the Land”, practically equal to the Constitution. This means that it will override state and local laws regarding the family. The jurisdiction of the federal government will then extend into your private family life.

It basically becomes constitutional law unless the constitution explicitly exempts a particular law from treaties (according to V.C of T, the Gold standard for treaties). Some of you, having studied the constitution, may object here on a variety of grounds. Some will claim that the 10th amendment protects us. A Supreme Court case in the 1950’s called Reid v. Covert clearly ruled that while a treaty cannot override an explicit constitutional law, it can become the final legal word if the Constitution does not speak to that particular area of law. Some will say that the founders never intended federal jurisdiction in this area of life and others will say that Article 6 treaty powers only meant for international issues. However, regardless of which interpretation is correct, the current legal environment has chosen to interpret Article 6 as a way to implement law through treaties rather than through a normal legislative process. To them, it becomes “supreme law of the land” regardless of what legal opinionists say in disagreement.

Part 14: The Emerging Worldview Threatening our Children, Section 4

Obviously, this view is different than most American’s beliefs and should be opposed by anyone who believes that parents have an inalienable right to direct the upbringing and education of their own children. If the government gains the upper hand, they will take over this role from the parents. This will occur through legal means, educational means, and administrative means. Who exactly will take over? The ruling political class and their experts.
In contrast, we recognize that God has given parents certain rights and duties, not the government. They are inalienable rights based on the duties commanded by God discussed earlier. They do not need the government to grant them, only protect them from its own power grab. Unless parents cross a criminal line, the civil government must stay out of the family sphere. The real perpetrator against rights is government. As will be seen shortly, the UN seeks to undermine the Biblical view of parental rights
As the final ingredient to a nasty recipe, many high ranking leaders of our country believe in Customary International Law. This is an entry point for the philosophy just discussed into our system of law. In simple terms, this means that International Law overrides our Constitution or Congressional law if the majority of other countries already hold to it. For parental rights this means that we should obey the CRC even though we have not ratified it.
One may examine the US Supreme Court Case of Roper v. Simmons in which the CRC was used to rule against the juvenile death penalty. My concern lies not with the death penalty, but with the use of the CRC to argue against it based on Customary International Law. Another example is a judge in NY and another in Ohio has even used the CRC to rule in cases involving American parents. This is another example of using customary international law although the Ohio judge simply thought that we had already ratified the CRC. If that is not irritating enough, San Francisco, Portland, OR, and Berkeley have adopted CRC (without legal jurisdiction to adopt treaties).
You should also be aware that very high ranking officials in the US Justice Department and the State Department believe this theory of law. Harold Koh believes this as a high ranking State Dept. lawyer. David Ogden -- deputy attorney general of the United States, the second highest position in the Justice Department also holds to this philosophy.
And last but not least, not only does our new Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor believe in the supremacy of international law, but so does our current tentative appointee, Elena Kagan. So you can see that the leaders entrusted to defend us and our law, don’t believe in defending us, but instead surrendering our freedoms to international law. If these leaders and their followers have their way, the CRC will probably become part of American law without Senate ratification through Customary International Law.
Obviously, while the first two philosophies combine to pose a great danger to parental rights, the third ingredient simply opens wide the door to their UNWELCOME intrusion and heightens the urgency of a response by American parents.

Part 13: The Emerging Worldview that Threatens Our Children, Section 3

Does this view of the world agree with your own beliefs about parenting? Have you fallen for their deception that you are incompetent and should just trust them all the time? The second aspect of this warped worldview is that many groups and leaders also have a different view of legal rights than the majority of America holds. This view synergizes with this philosophy towards government knowing best.

Americans have long viewed rights as boundaries that government was assigned to protect so that freedoms could be practiced by individual citizens. Within those boundaries, citizens are free to practice or to not practice those rights. For example, gun rights or freedom of speech. You can carry a gun if you don’t break the law, but you are not required to do so. What gun rights would we have without the Bill of Rights? On the contrary, International theory of rights understands rights as something that the government is obligated to provide as a service or to meet a physical need or to equalize two groups. Citizens can demand that right and expect the government to provide it. That may be health care, education, social programs. It often includes taking from one and giving to another.

When these two philosophies or worldviews are combined and applied to children’s rights, the following results: Government knows what is best and is legally bound to provide that to the child regardless of parent’s wishes. Children can demand that the government provide this right over the protest of parents. Parents must carry out the government’s plan for what is best for the child, not their own belief in what is best. Under these circumstances, children are not really emancipated from their parents, but instead they are enslaved to a faceless, unemotional government bureaucracy rather being protected by loving parents.

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 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 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.

Part 5 Biblical Basis for Parenting Part 1

Any argument needs a sturdy foundation, something we can all agree on wholeheartedly. Before I can convince you to gather into an army, I must convince you that it is your responsibility. Hopefully, the majority of you can be convinced (if you are not already) with sound Biblical exegesis and without too much debate. While there are many scripture texts that illustrate the principle that parents are responsible for their children’s upbringing, I will focus on three that are the most direct in the commands. These three are Ephesians 6:4, Deuteronomy 6:6-9, and I Timothy 3:5.

Ephesians 6:4 reads “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (ESV). While fathers are named directly, both parents will likely be held accountable for their contribution to children’s upbringing. In this verse, parents are told to “bring them up” or ektrephete auta in Greek, in the “discipline” paideia of the Lord and the “instruction”, or nouthesia of the Lord. The Greek word ektrephete auta translated as “bring them up” means to be nurturing. What does it mean to nurture? I believe it is safe to say that feeding, clothing, protecting are included in the concept of nurturing among many other such tasks. Then the Greek word paideia is translated as “training”. Earlier in 2 Timothy, teaching in mentioned, so this word for discipline probably is intended to say more than just teaching. It appears to indicate a more active, involved, and interactive training process for children by their parents. Finally, the Greek word nouthesia, translated as instruction, is a word with more of an admonishment connotation than just the concept of teaching. With this connotation, we are commanded to warn our children of morally wrong behavior, sinful choices, and other potentially self damaging behavior. Nurturing, training, and admonishment are therefore central tasks assigned to parents by God, even commanded.

Even the bare conscience of man knows that parents have a duty to carry out these tasks as well as protect their children. We instinctively abhor the parent who neglects their child to the point of that child being harmed. However, this function of conscience is not sufficient as it can be seared and shrugged off, or justified as simple cultural differences in child rearing. Therefore, the Bible speaks loudly and clearly in these verses. It really leaves no doubt on the matter. Considering God’s clarity and boldness, neither our sloth, nor our ignorance, nor any early power’s stand against our duty is a sufficient excuse for us to not obey this command. I will return to this though of earthly powers standing in our way a little later.

Part 3 of Many: Introduction to the issues facing American Parents

The simple, cold, hard truth is that the traditional view of parenting is under frontal assault. What is this traditional view in danger of passing away with the hula hoop? The American tradition of parenting has long viewed parents as free, within the bounds of the law, to raise their own children according to their values and beliefs. Only clearly proven criminal behavior, proven by due process, terminated a parent’s right to direct their children’s education and upbringing. This traditional view clearly finds its roots in the Bible and is evident across even other cultures and throughout history.
Contrasting this view, which most of you probably hold, is the view held by many in positions of governmental power or by so called child experts. As the quiz in Part 2 of this series and even an hour of research into this issue proves, these leaders and experts believe that they have a right and a duty to intrude into your family’s parenting practices. Many want to dictate increasingly intrusive regulations for how parents raise their children and what parents teach their children. In the realm of education, the National Education Association and the US Dept. of Education currently decide what children must learn in public schools. Through their overpowering financial influence on textbook publishers, they also indirectly guide the curriculum of many private schools. These decisions involve not only subjects like math or reading, but morals like tolerance and sexual values. Together with doctors, bureaucrats, and vaccine producers, schools press parents into vaccine administration through campaigns of fear. (Disclaimer: some vaccines are good, some I question. Do the research yourself. I am not advocating for or against any vaccine and will not answer any specific questions on vaccines). Child Protective Services and Department of Health and Human Services want to tell you how you discipline your children or at least fear their actions. Certain leaders proclaim that a village is needed to raise your child. Against this notion, consider the idea of children being raised by a “tribe”? A tribe would simply be a group of individuals which the parents choose to relate with their children, rather than a bureaucrat or group only related by proximity instead of shared values? Finally, the United Nations refuses to be left out of this big government intrusion. They want to force our federal government to teach the values of tolerance of immoral behaviors through their Convention on the Rights of the Child and their UNESCO Sex Education guide.

Part 1 of Many, Transcript of Recent Lecture on Parental Rights

On August 7th I delivered an hour’s worth of education on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to a group of homeschoolers here in Tennessee. I want to share that talk with you in bite sized portions over the coming weeks in order to deepen your understanding of this crucial issue, to challenge you to join our effort, and to equip you in many ways for this battle. Below is part 1 of that talk.

For those of you unfamiliar with me or my involvement in this issue, permit me to introduce myself and to provide some credibility for what follows. I am a physician in Tennessee who trained in both adult and pediatric medicine. After practicing both areas of medicine for 5 years, I moved into adult medicine alone for the sake of being a father to 2 wonderful children whom we are homeschooling. It is through homeschooling connections that I learned of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in February of 2009. A fateful e-mail alert, which I will never forget, led me down a trail of research that even today continues to startle me. In this process, I have strategically researched the issue from multiple angles and debated others from the variety of perspectives weighing in on this issue. As a final ingredient, I have begun studying the Biblical responsibility of parents to direct the care and upbringing of their children.

I offer the accumulation of the past year and a half of study to you with the sincere hope that you will arouse as parents from your slumber with a clear call to gather into an army for the sake of your children and mine.

Senator Alexander Agrees with President Obama's Education Plan

I want to mention a recent blog posting in the Tennessean online that quotes Senator Alexander as praising President Obama's educational plan as well as Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's "big heart" and his working in a bipartisan way. I am appalled at our Senator's support of government control of schooling. Please study the Obama / Duncan plan to see how they plan to take freedom from parents and give power over our children to beaurocrats.

Please call him this week to express your frustration with his delay in co-sponsoring SR 519 and his unbelievable praise for President Obama's planned government takeover of education.

Sen. Alexander 202-224-4944
CLICK here for local offices

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is destructive to the tradition of parental rights in America. The treaty sets what appears to the casual reader to be a benign standard in its Article 3 of seeking the “best interest of the child” which is hard to disagree with. Later it adds Article 18, which places the government in the role of delegating to parents the "responsibility" to raise their children. Obviously, if the government "gives" that right, it can determine how parents should carry out that responsibility and hold them accountable. Article 6 of our own constitution then makes this international human rights treaty, if ratified by 67 of our U.S. Senators, the Supreme Law of the Land, practically equal to the constitution. The only recourse of protection from this “supremacy” is explicit wording denying it in our own Constitution which I will explain in the future. Scanning through the rest of the treaty, one finds what the United Nations defines as the “best interests of the child” and these definitions may startle most of you (at least I hope you understand it well enough to see the underlying reality). The government will decide what is best for your child based on this treaty. The treaty guarantees protection of privacy to children even in their own home. The treaty encourages children to appeal parental decisions, with which they disagree, to government authorities as final arbiters. The government is charged with protecting the child’s right to access information deemed “best” for them. The government is also charged with overseeing the education of children. Given their current success in education or lack of it, this should be frightening to all, whether home schooled or private schooled or even in public schools. And one last note, the government will protect your child’s right to health care which according to other U.N. treaties and practices, will mean contraceptive access and abortion without parental consent. Ultimately, the government becomes the decision maker and the parent simply must carry out the values and intent of the government.

A simple way to understand this is: the federal government is the new parent, the United Nations is the grandparent, and we, the parents, become the babysitters, carrying out the government's instructions.

Parental Rights in Jeopardy

Welcome to my inaugral entry into blog moderation.

In the past four months, I have undergone a transformation which I recommend for all parents that cherish their freedoms. The quiet, yet fretful, father-physician, that I once was, has metamorphosized into a unquenchably passionate activist, addicted to defending our right to parent. Every effect requires a cause, and such a powerful effect requires an equally great cause.

With that introduction, I come to my point, "What was the cause of my metamorphosis?" In February, I learned of a threat to the American way of life so great that I could no longer linger in my intentional denial of the changes taking place in our country. That was when I learned of the forces gathering to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I will not provide the details now, but I will strip away those layers of flesh to reveal the heart of this issue that provides me with such passion and motivation.

The heart of the issue is bound up in the consequences of ideas. All ideas have consequences; they do not happen in a vaccum, devoid of impact. The idea here is the philosophy that government, its officials, its experts, its bureaucracy, and all their trappings know what is best for the individual citizen and furthermore should force it upon them. Despite the antithetical nature of this philosophy to the foundations of America's republican form of government, many Americans are promoting this philosophy in the form of this United Nations treaty. They sincerely believe that they, in their roles of government leadership and expert opinion, know better than a child's own parents what is best for the individual child. They reach beyond claiming knowledge of the best common good and intrude into decisions for the individual good of families, particularly the children.

By claiming this superior wisdom and seeking the power of this treaty to implement it in our great nation, they will strip parents of the very right to pass values, tradition, and beliefs to their next generation. They claim high motives of protecting against child abuse, protecting from unhealthy influences by parents, assuring the proper education of all children, and so much more. They practically claim that they will provide salvation of all that is bad in the world for children. This mostly means salvation from parents and parental influence.

There I find myself, engulfed in the flames of passion, hearing forces claiming that we as parents do not possess the wisdom nor the intention to provide what they deem "best" for our own children. I will give up many privileges, many perks, many luxuries, but I will never, ever, give up the right to raise my children and direct the provision of all that is good for their growth into mature citizens of our great nation.

Therefore, I work against this United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child and for a Parental Rights Amendment which I believe after much research is our best hope against the gathering forces for the treaty.

Please refer to www.parentalrights.org for further background on this treaty. If you live in Tennessee, search Tennessee on that website for our Tennessee webpage.