Part 26: What You Can Do

We have spent many weeks walking through this presentation of our parental rights in jeopardy. I pray that you have reached the point of pleading for a way to contribute to this vital work. If not, go back and reread past posts or email me with your questions or reservations and we can talk. If you are pleading for something you can do, then keep reading below.
You have begun the first step already by learning about this issue. Continue reading more about this so that you can share what you learn with others. My blog will continue to provide news articles and learning opportunities as well as the national website. Next, sign the national petition at www.parentalrights.org. We are striving towards 10000 signatures in each congressional district across America so that we can stand before our congressmen and press them for their support of the amendment. We have somewhere over 7000 for the entire state of Tennessee currently.

Another simple thing is to invite one of our local speakers to one of your groups to share the message with your circle of friends. You provide a meeting place, the invitations, and some listening ears. We will provide the rest.



More Next Edition...

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.

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 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.

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.