Part 27: More of What You Can Do

From there, begin to do what your pastor has always said to not do: GOSSIP. We need you to tell everyone you know about this issue. Only with your voice sharing this alert will we reach our goal. As our numbers build, there will then come a time that we will ask you to call our Senators and your US Representatives. When the Parental Rights Amendment is presented to Congress in the coming 1 to 2 months, we will need people to call and ask their elected congressmen to sign on as a supporter of the amendment.

Those are the basic requests that we have for you, but you may still be asking for more action items. Here are a few more. If you search the net for "parental rights" or "UN Convention on the Rights of the Child" (or just click on the article links that I send), you can leave comments on these sites in support of the amendment. This traffic draws attention to the issue and helps our cause. If you have your own blog, please consider copying one of my posts or write your own piece on the issue. The national organization has memberships on their site which help support the cause and have a store to buy T-shirts, etc. Beyond that, I am looking for speakers, willing to study the issue and take their newfound knowledge out for sharing with different groups across Tennessee. If that strikes your fancy, email me at parentalrightstn@fastmail.net.

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.

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.

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 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 19: Review of Recent Sections

Recognizing that this series is long, I am providing a short review of the recent section on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We are left here with a foreign treaty becoming equal with our constitution and then telling us how to raise our God-given children through the force of our federal government. We will therefore lose our ability to pass a heritage of beliefs on to our next generation.

See here a link to past posts in this section.

Part 11: Section 1 of The Emerging Worldview that Threatens our Future Generations
Part 12: Section 2 of 4
Part 13: Section 3 of 4
Part 14: Section 4 of 4

Part 15: The Convention on the Rights of the Child Itself
Part 16: Foundational Articles of the CRC
Part 17: Specific Rights in the CRC
Part 18: To Be Fair to the CRC

To READ other parts of this series go to my blog Home page.

Part 18: To Be Fair to the CRC

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is not all bad. We can concede that it has some beneficial sections and effects. The treaty includes protections against sending children into war, against child prostitution/trafficking, as well as against child abuse. However in America, we already have laws that provide any miniscule benefit found in the treaty. Why should we swallow the poison of the bad parts just to ingest the thin chocolate coating mentioned here? To add some perspective to the silliness of other countries attacking America for not signing the full treaty, consider this: The optional sections of the treaty against sending children to war have been signed by the United States, but not by many of the same countries chastising us. They want us to ratify the treaty yet they cannot even agree to this fundamental protection of children. Furthermore, many of the same signatory countries violate the treaty while chastising us out of the other side of their mouths.

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.

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 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.

Part 9: The Legality of Parental Freedoms

First of all, parental rights in our country stand on clear tradition from even before the founding of our nation. These are Judeo-Christian Biblical values and traditions brought to America by our forefathers from Europe. Parental rights in our country also stand on many precedents and legal facts.

First, the Tenth Amendment protects parental rights by setting limits on federal government from intruding on rights reserved to the people and to the states. Therefore the federal government only has powers delegated to it and power over non-criminal family activity has not been so delegated by the Constitution.

From this basis, Supreme Court precedents have followed this reasoning. Multiple cases beginning in 1925 have upheld parent’s rights to raise and educate their own children. You can study them on the Parental Rights.Org website. This has been unquestionably upheld until 2000 Troxel v. Granville. Only a plurality, not a majority opinion, upheld parental rights as being constitutionally protected in that case. The plurality opinion means that 4 or less justices voted that parental rights are constitutionally protected. They rule in favor of the parents in the actual case, but the lower courts are left to decide for themselves about the extent of parental rights since not all justices agreed.

More on this important arena of the parental rights battle will come later.

So, besides a Biblical duty, we also have a constitutional and historical foundation for parental rights which reiterate the Biblical understanding that parenting belongs to parents.

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.

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 4 of Many: Nothing New Under the Sun

A little research will quickly reveal how this trend has been growing for decades, even centuries. However, after years of incrementally slow changes, political forces are now moving faster and attempting to solidify a legal foundation for their philosophy of parenting. This is done in the name of “we’re from the government and we are here to help”. They claim to be championing the cause of abused and oppressed children across the globe. Many are even brazen enough to champion protection from parents by claiming exaggerated statistics about child abuse.
In order to combat this intrusion and thus defend our children, you must understand each of the following aspects of this issue. First, you must understand the Biblical basis of your parental calling and duty. This is not simply a “be a parent because it benefits you” situation. You have a command from God to bear direct responsibility for your children throughout their formative years. Next, you must understand your constitutional rights and the legal history of our country’s family law. This provides confidence in your legal standing and weapons for the battle at hand. From there, a necessary ingredient is a clear vision of the worldview behind this push to remove parental influence. You must know your adversary, their motives, their methods, their logic, their fears, and their weaknesses. Along with this understanding, you must read and know the details of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This treaty, in all its proclaimed good will, is the tangible manifestation of the worldview above. It is one of their most dangerous weapons. With all this information in your head, you must then press a little further into the issue to understand the political situation which makes this worldview potentially implementable. Finally, with such wisdom of the adversary, you must do more than respond with a reflexive cry of frustration or anger. Parental Rights.Org has formulated a response that requires mass participation by parents through both a concerted voice of opposition and individual behaviors that will synergize to stop this attack on our children in its tracks. You must understand the logic of the response and your necessary involvement. Then you must fulfill your calling as a parent with these weapons of knowledge and wisdom in an epic battle for the hearts, souls, and minds of your children