The previously described philosophies (see part 3 of this series) are spelled out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by way of “rights” codified in the treaty’s articles. Many of these so-called “rights” are benevolent, like outlawing child abuse, outlawing using children as soldiers, and outlawing child prostitution. However, most if not all Americans should recognize that we already have laws for protecting children in these circumstances and absolutely do not need a duplication of those laws. This is especially true if parents realize what other baggage comes packaged in this treaty.
At first reading, some of these other rights seem harmless at face value while others are obviously at least concerning. The reader of the treaty could be left wondering whether there is cause for fear or not until they look at how the treaty has been used in other countries and the United Nation’s actions through other human rights treaties. The right to privacy found in article 16 was used in Japan to prevent parents from accessing their children’s text messages, chat rooms, and e-mails. In Britain, this treaty is being used to legislate that home-schooled children can be subjected to an unannounced in-home examination without their parents present through its right to an education that government determines is best. In Belize, the committee overseeing the treaty recommended that the Belize government create formal avenues in which children could legally protest their parent’s violations of this treaty’s rights. The treaty also guarantees a right to health care including reproductive health care which seems noble. However, the intention of this right needs to be considered in light of another UN treaty called the Convention to End All Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW. CEDAW has been used to force countries to legalize abortion and decriminalize prostitution (1,2,3). Given the treaty’s right to health care provision, children could be guaranteed the right to abortion even without parental consent as it is a reproductive health care right. One final issue should cause great concern for American gun-owners. Given the treaty’s stance that government should always seek the best interest of the child and the UN’s stance that guns are bad for children, this will naturally lead to gun control in our country in the guise of protecting children. Parents will be forced to part with their guns voluntarily or possibly lose their children to government officials like child protective services. Many more examples could be provided, but this alone should be enough to raise the alarm of American parents who believe that God has given them the responsibility and the right to raise their children according to their own values and beliefs, not those of the government.
As stated at the beginning, some of these “rights” sound vague, benign, or sometimes benevolent when first read. However, each is ultimately an open door to further control of our private family life by the federal government and the United Nations. As a whole and individually, they infringe or forsake our constitutional rights in multiple ways. In doing so, they spell the end of the American tradition of parenting. America’s future under this treaty can be forseen in the effects they are having in other countries (see www.parentalrights.org for more examples). Do we want our federal government to begin teaching our 4 years about sex like the Netherlands educational system does (based on same philosophy as the treaty? Especially when the United Nation’s idea of sex education at that age includes an explanation of masturbation? (4) Shouldn’t the parent decide upon the appropriate timing these discussions?
Stay tuned for the final part 5 in the series.
Footnotes
(1) Web posted letter from National Right to Life to US Congressmen: http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ForeignAid/SenateCEDAWletter020107.html
(2) Catholic Exchange Article, CEDAW Committee Abortion Misinterpretations Infect Human Rights Committee, Sept. 11th, 2008, Samantha Singson. http://catholicexchange.com/2008/09/11/113696/
(3) United nations Report, Women and Health Mainstreaming the Gender Perspective into the Health Sector, Expert Group Meeting 28 Sept. to 2 October 1998. http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/healthr.htm
(4) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, International Guidelines on Sexuality Education:…, June 2009 http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/082509_unesco.pdf
Friday, November 6, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
The Two Philosophies Behind the Convention on the Rights of the Child
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child seems benevolent or at least benign to many parents. Parents ask, “Who could oppose such a noble endeavor?” However, before supporting or simply ignoring this treaty, they must understand the philosophies that underlie it and the potential impact. Two philosophies summarize the heart of this UN treaty. The first is that the government knows what is best for children better than parents. The second is that, as international human rights theory promotes, governments are obligated to protect not just rights, but also to provide services at the child’s request, even over the parent’s objections. Taken together, this means that government has the final say in the upbringing of children.
The two philosophies work together but can be understood best by first examining them separately. The first philosophy has been promoted by Hillary Clinton in a number of her books and also by other prominent figures. They all advocate that government or its experts are better equipped to decide how a child should be raised. Article three of the treaty says that government will always seek the best interest of the child in all it does. While all parents would agree with seeking the best interest of their own children, the crux of the problem lies in “who decides what is best?” According to this philosophy, the government decides rather than the parent. This alone is a dangerous philosophy to apply in American law.
The second philosophy is an application of general international human rights theory to the area of child rights. America has long held rights to be God-given, or inalienable, and thus protected both by the government and from the government. The international view goes further and also holds rights as services or goods that the individual can claim from the government. Article 18 of the treaty creates a vague open door by saying that parent’s primary responsibility is to seek the best interest of the child AND the government will provide appropriate assistance. The central question to ask are “who decides when that assistance is needed?”. Under this philosophy, the government and its experts will make that decision. From there, article 12 adds fuel to the fire by saying that the child should have their voice heard in all administrative and judicial matters affecting them. Therefore, the child can petition the government directly to complain that their parents are not seeking their best interest and expect that the government will step in to provide appropriate assistance. Ultimately, articles 18 and 12 do not give the child freedom, but it instead enslaves them to the government and removes their most ardent protectors, the parents. Under the current system, parents serve as barriers to outside forces that would harm children or infringe on their rights. This new system would be replace parents with government representatives who would become the final line of defense protecting “their” children.
Taken together, the federal government and its experts decide what is best, the child can petition the government to overrule their parents, and the government is obligated or empowered to intervene on behalf of the child even against the parent’s wishes. The government becomes the parent and the parent becomes the babysitter. Is this what American parents want for their children?
(Return soon for part 4 discussing specific rights outlined in the treaty.)
The two philosophies work together but can be understood best by first examining them separately. The first philosophy has been promoted by Hillary Clinton in a number of her books and also by other prominent figures. They all advocate that government or its experts are better equipped to decide how a child should be raised. Article three of the treaty says that government will always seek the best interest of the child in all it does. While all parents would agree with seeking the best interest of their own children, the crux of the problem lies in “who decides what is best?” According to this philosophy, the government decides rather than the parent. This alone is a dangerous philosophy to apply in American law.
The second philosophy is an application of general international human rights theory to the area of child rights. America has long held rights to be God-given, or inalienable, and thus protected both by the government and from the government. The international view goes further and also holds rights as services or goods that the individual can claim from the government. Article 18 of the treaty creates a vague open door by saying that parent’s primary responsibility is to seek the best interest of the child AND the government will provide appropriate assistance. The central question to ask are “who decides when that assistance is needed?”. Under this philosophy, the government and its experts will make that decision. From there, article 12 adds fuel to the fire by saying that the child should have their voice heard in all administrative and judicial matters affecting them. Therefore, the child can petition the government directly to complain that their parents are not seeking their best interest and expect that the government will step in to provide appropriate assistance. Ultimately, articles 18 and 12 do not give the child freedom, but it instead enslaves them to the government and removes their most ardent protectors, the parents. Under the current system, parents serve as barriers to outside forces that would harm children or infringe on their rights. This new system would be replace parents with government representatives who would become the final line of defense protecting “their” children.
Taken together, the federal government and its experts decide what is best, the child can petition the government to overrule their parents, and the government is obligated or empowered to intervene on behalf of the child even against the parent’s wishes. The government becomes the parent and the parent becomes the babysitter. Is this what American parents want for their children?
(Return soon for part 4 discussing specific rights outlined in the treaty.)
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Silent, but Urgent Threat to Parental Rights
Very few recognize the slow, yet continual erosion of parent’s rights by many forces in our government at local, state, and federal levels. The erosion has occurred without fanfare and, what little media attention it garners, usually casts the parents in a negative light or takes only the most egregious examples of bad parents to make the point against all parents. Even when parental rights were restored in some cases, the media often still accused the parents of wrongdoing. Often the media would lament that the child protective workers just couldn’t get enough evidence to prove the parent’s guilt. The media never assumes that maybe the “protective” workers were not so innocent and the accused parents were not so “guilty”. Besides such individual cases and the overgeneralizations, dangerous court precedents are being set one case at a time, usually disregarded by the media as unimportant. If that is not enough, bills are working their way into laws which erode parental control over education, healthcare, religion, and other important areas. Slowly the heat is being turned up on parents wading in the waters of our nation’s culture. Those simmering parents must realize the urgency of the next few degrees of heat that will bring the legal waters to a boiling point and will mean the end of parenting in America as we know it.
Why do the supporters of government-controlled parenting enjoy the silence and stealth? In the quiet, they can slowly turn up the heat one degree at a time without anyone taking much notice. American parents just learn to accept the warmer water as being natural since they trust the government to do what is best. The supporters set up law after law, one court precedent after another, until, with a simple tweak of one more degree, everything boils and American parents are stunned to find themselves in boiling water, unable to escape. If parents saw the final goal held by these forces or read the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN CRC) with open eyes of understanding, they would protest with outrage. The UN CRC aids our understanding because it is the most tangible manifestation of the philosophy that government knows what is best for children and should overrule parents in their decisions for their own children. As it is now, if no parent reads the recipe in that treaty, we will all suffer a common demise of our parental rights in this legal environment.
Why is it urgent? The US State Department is processing this treaty as fast as Senator Barbara Boxer can push them. She wanted to present it to the US Senate for a 2/3’s ratification vote in April of this year. The State Department thankfully wanted time to process it properly. Senator Boxer and others such as our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, believe that their long awaited dream of ratifying this treaty by 67 Senate “yes” votes is ripe for the picking. Furthermore, our president and many in his chosen administration believe that it is a disgrace that America has not yet signed this treaty. Even though this treaty hands over state and national sovereignty unconstitutionally, they will do so and act “as if” it is constitutionally allowed. Meanwhile, outside Washington D.C., many groups are building momentum to help push this through the Senate. They have held conferences, raised funding, and started grassroots campaigns. No punches are being pulled in this battle for who controls the future of our children.
In summary, supporters enjoy the relative silence compared to the roar surrounding other government issues facing Americans and their fading liberties right now. They benefit from American parent’s deafness and ignorance towards this crucial issue. Yet the situation is growing more and more urgent as each day passes without American parents awakening to this threat, a threat that is ready to boil over at any minute.
(Return soon for part 3 of the series which discusses the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child itself.)
Friday, October 23, 2009
Why the Convention on the Rights of the Child is a Core Issue
(Part 1 of 5 in a series)
There are certain issues in our epic battle for freedom so fundamental that winning all other skirmishes, but losing these critical battles still results in defeat. With multiple attacks on freedom coming at us daily, discernment, focus, and coordination are required by America’s citizens if these issues are to be targeted for special efforts. The right of parents to decide how their children are raised and what their children are taught is one of these core issues. In America we have long held this tradition as a fundamental right granted by God. However, this tradition is being challenged by forces from within and from outside our own nation. If, through slow erosion in the courts and legislatures or through the floodgate of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the government gains full control of “parenting”, one thing is guaranteed. The passing of the current generation will leave the next generation shaped, molded, and indoctrinated according to the values of our government’s leaders and experts. That generation will be enslaved to the government as the one to whom it owes allegiance, and freedom will be forsaken.
Three simple truths prove the fundamental nature of this issue. First, God ordained that the family has the primary responsibility for directing the intellectual and moral education of children. Within this family structure, parents were made the primary source of influence as to what values and beliefs are passed to the next generation. If parents abdicate that role to the government, then the values of the government, not the family, will shape the next generation. Second, a simple historical investigation reveals how multiple dictators targeted children for indoctrination from early ages. The dictators knew that their future power lay in the hands of the next generation’s submission to government authority. Even Plato was concerned that the very stories told to infants were important in shaping society’s future. Finally, as the introduction tried to highlight, only one generation’s passing stands between freedom and its disappearance if parents allow the government to control the next generation’s upbringing. You see, if the government controls their upbringing, they will be taught that submission to the government and its values is of the highest importance. Whatever sense of freedom that our generation holds dear will not even be a memory in the next generation’s mind after such indoctrination.
Health care, the banking industry, the car industry, and other areas are unquestionably important skirmishes, but the intellectual, spiritual, and moral development of our next generation is not a battle that we can afford lose if we hope to win the ongoing war for freedom. As Wendell Phillips said in 1852, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”. May God help American parents to recognize the magnitude of this issue and to be eternally vigilant in protecting children by protecting our rights to parent them.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Good Morning America !
While not packed with juicy morsels to raise your blood pressure or drive you to insane irritation at our government's intrusion into private life, I did not want to pass up an opportunity to ask how you are handling our brave new world. In a day when the issues come flying by you at warp speed, reminiscent of the blurring stars in a Star Treak or Star Wars movie, how do you stay sane?
My answer: I spend each day living another analogy, that of standing in a burning building with one bucket of water. So many fires, so little water. I just have to stop and pray for wisdom. I pray that God will lead me to use my bucket of water (time, resources, energy, talents) in the direction where it is most effective and fits in with His plan. Then I pray that others will go through the same process in using their buckets of water. With God's directing and our listening, some coordinated effect should result.
So grab your bucket, ask for direction, and go put out a fire today. Tomorrow, start all over and do it again......
Sincerely,
Eric Potter MD
My answer: I spend each day living another analogy, that of standing in a burning building with one bucket of water. So many fires, so little water. I just have to stop and pray for wisdom. I pray that God will lead me to use my bucket of water (time, resources, energy, talents) in the direction where it is most effective and fits in with His plan. Then I pray that others will go through the same process in using their buckets of water. With God's directing and our listening, some coordinated effect should result.
So grab your bucket, ask for direction, and go put out a fire today. Tomorrow, start all over and do it again......
Sincerely,
Eric Potter MD
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Berkeley and the United Nations
Berkeley dealing directly with United Nations
A good friend forwarded a very concerning article to me this morning. The city of Berkeley, California, will soon be voting on a measure to begin reporting directly to the United Nations on their compliance with UN human rights treaty. I believe we would all agree that torture, civil rights, and racial discrimination are important issues. However, should a city forge a "treaty" of sorts with the United Nations. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the people of the United States of America delegated that power to our federal government. Under division of powers in federalism, a city can not do this constitutionally.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is not explicitly mentioned, but obviously would be a logical initial piece of the plan or later addition. In this you can see the direction of our nation.
Read THIS LINK for more information.
A good friend forwarded a very concerning article to me this morning. The city of Berkeley, California, will soon be voting on a measure to begin reporting directly to the United Nations on their compliance with UN human rights treaty. I believe we would all agree that torture, civil rights, and racial discrimination are important issues. However, should a city forge a "treaty" of sorts with the United Nations. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the people of the United States of America delegated that power to our federal government. Under division of powers in federalism, a city can not do this constitutionally.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is not explicitly mentioned, but obviously would be a logical initial piece of the plan or later addition. In this you can see the direction of our nation.
Read THIS LINK for more information.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Fellow Americans,
I am calling on you to awaken to the reality before us. The reality is that a battle is being waged against your right to raise your children. The reality is that intellectual assent to this reality will not protect you or your children. If you are not already working to spread the word and fight this battle, you must awaken from your slumber and find your role in this battle. If you are already waging battle, keep up the good fight and don't give up.
Why am I fired up this morning? First and foremost is the growing recognition that this is a spiritual battle even more than a physical or philosophical battle. This is about the God given right to teach our children about the glorious Creator God and His Son. Therefore, the battle neither begins nor ends, nor is won by words or deeds. It begins in repentance to God for our part in allowing our culture to degrade to such a point. Next comes a continual prayer for an awakening of the body of Christ. Then a prayer for guidance in what each of our roles should be in this battle and a prayer for strength and perseverance in that role. When we stand up from that prayer, we must keep our eyes on God and His work in this battle. We know our children are loved by Him even more than we love them, and can trust that He will move mightily to defend them. If we are distracted or driven to despair by looking at the works of evil, we will not be effective in this fight.
The second reason for my fervor is a video that surfaced in the past 24 hours showing school children being led in a song of praise to our President. CLICK HERE or read more about it at THIS LINK. This is what our nation is heading towards. Do not be deceived that this is an isolated incident. Stop and look at the pieces of the puzzle. It is another part to the machinery of indoctrinating our children with Statism (read more below).
Statism is just a fancy term for the belief that government can, will, and should supply all our needs. Our Founders did not create such a government. We have not thrived as a country based on this belief. AND WE SURE DON'T NEED IT NOW ANY MORE THAN THEN.
However, our leaders are preaching this more and more to the masses. More entitlements. More forfeiture of liberty and property for the "greater good". More government and LESS freedom.
Will we allow this to take our children? Do not answer this question with words unless those words are directed to God in prayer. Then act on God's calling in His Word and in your heart.
May God save our country,Eric Potter MDTennessee Director for Parental Rights.Org
I am calling on you to awaken to the reality before us. The reality is that a battle is being waged against your right to raise your children. The reality is that intellectual assent to this reality will not protect you or your children. If you are not already working to spread the word and fight this battle, you must awaken from your slumber and find your role in this battle. If you are already waging battle, keep up the good fight and don't give up.
Why am I fired up this morning? First and foremost is the growing recognition that this is a spiritual battle even more than a physical or philosophical battle. This is about the God given right to teach our children about the glorious Creator God and His Son. Therefore, the battle neither begins nor ends, nor is won by words or deeds. It begins in repentance to God for our part in allowing our culture to degrade to such a point. Next comes a continual prayer for an awakening of the body of Christ. Then a prayer for guidance in what each of our roles should be in this battle and a prayer for strength and perseverance in that role. When we stand up from that prayer, we must keep our eyes on God and His work in this battle. We know our children are loved by Him even more than we love them, and can trust that He will move mightily to defend them. If we are distracted or driven to despair by looking at the works of evil, we will not be effective in this fight.
The second reason for my fervor is a video that surfaced in the past 24 hours showing school children being led in a song of praise to our President. CLICK HERE or read more about it at THIS LINK. This is what our nation is heading towards. Do not be deceived that this is an isolated incident. Stop and look at the pieces of the puzzle. It is another part to the machinery of indoctrinating our children with Statism (read more below).
Statism is just a fancy term for the belief that government can, will, and should supply all our needs. Our Founders did not create such a government. We have not thrived as a country based on this belief. AND WE SURE DON'T NEED IT NOW ANY MORE THAN THEN.
However, our leaders are preaching this more and more to the masses. More entitlements. More forfeiture of liberty and property for the "greater good". More government and LESS freedom.
Will we allow this to take our children? Do not answer this question with words unless those words are directed to God in prayer. Then act on God's calling in His Word and in your heart.
May God save our country,Eric Potter MDTennessee Director for Parental Rights.Org
Monday, September 14, 2009
Constitution Week Calling Campaign
Celebrate Constitution Week!!!
This week marks the anniversary of our US Constitution, the oldest democratic constitution still in use. By God's grace, this document has protected freedoms within our country for over 200 years and has been a light of freedom across the globe as well.
Besides pausing to appreciate this treasure this week, please take a few minutes to help uphold these rights. We are asking you to call those Congressmen who have not committed to sponsoring the parental rights amendment yet and ask them to "get off the fence". We would also hope that you can tell at least one other person to do the same. Together we may keep our rights to raise our children according to the values and beliefs that we hold dear. Without each other, we may lose those rights to our government.
During this time we must also remember that the Constitution is only a piece of paper and "we, the people" are entrusted to uphold its principles and to hold government accountable to these principles.
"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." -- Daniel Webster (1834) "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" -- either Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry ?
Our parental rights to raise our children according to a heritage of values and beliefs that we hold dear is now at stake on a bartering block for the noble cause of "child rights". If we do not pay the price for their hearts and minds, their future will pay the price of our negligence.
The smallest token you can deposit in the bank of freedom this week is to call your Congressmen if they haven't committed to sponsor the Parental Rights Amendment yet. Go to THIS PAGE and, if your Congressmen is NOT a sponsor, call and urge them to join this battle.
You can find out who your Congressmen are by going to THIS LINK and typing in your address or zip code. It will give you names, phone numbers, and web contacts.
This week marks the anniversary of our US Constitution, the oldest democratic constitution still in use. By God's grace, this document has protected freedoms within our country for over 200 years and has been a light of freedom across the globe as well.
Besides pausing to appreciate this treasure this week, please take a few minutes to help uphold these rights. We are asking you to call those Congressmen who have not committed to sponsoring the parental rights amendment yet and ask them to "get off the fence". We would also hope that you can tell at least one other person to do the same. Together we may keep our rights to raise our children according to the values and beliefs that we hold dear. Without each other, we may lose those rights to our government.
During this time we must also remember that the Constitution is only a piece of paper and "we, the people" are entrusted to uphold its principles and to hold government accountable to these principles.
"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." -- Daniel Webster (1834) "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" -- either Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry ?
Our parental rights to raise our children according to a heritage of values and beliefs that we hold dear is now at stake on a bartering block for the noble cause of "child rights". If we do not pay the price for their hearts and minds, their future will pay the price of our negligence.
The smallest token you can deposit in the bank of freedom this week is to call your Congressmen if they haven't committed to sponsor the Parental Rights Amendment yet. Go to THIS PAGE and, if your Congressmen is NOT a sponsor, call and urge them to join this battle.
You can find out who your Congressmen are by going to THIS LINK and typing in your address or zip code. It will give you names, phone numbers, and web contacts.
Monday, August 17, 2009
We are not in Kansas anymore!
Often, we find that someone we expect to be an ally, has placed themselves in opposition to our method while maintaining the same goal as we hold dear. Much frustration arises as we struggle to understand why we must work at odds rather than working together towards a goal we both profess and seek wholeheartedly. This has become a common experience in working to protect parental rights in our nation from the threat of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is hard enough to fight against the treaty’s advocates, but to feel betrayed by fellow parents that argue blatantly against your plan of defense against the common foe. The need for a Parental Rights Amendment seems so clear that no one could possibly accuse it of being as dangerous as the United Nations’ plan for raising your children according to their values. However, a number of sincere and outspoken advocates for parental rights are doing just this. At first, this was both irritating and confusing. Then, the key to understanding our divergence was found and unlocked the mystery.
In reading their arguments, one finds good evidence and some good reasoning, but one must look for what is not there. There are several areas of evidence that weigh heavily in the debate which are left out. Suddenly, it is clear. They are operating under the past assumptions of law, society, and precedent. Their plans for defending against the government’s intrusion into family life might work under past laws and national settings. However, today, the vague laws of the past which allowed parents to slide through loopholes of ambiguity or hide in the shadows of vagueness are all but obsolete. The authors of the laws learned from their mistakes and are regrouping with sharper edges on the laws and harder to find loopholes. A simple request for proof of a legal statute in the past was met with authorities backing down as they had nothing to show. However, today, the authorities are coming with stronger laws that can be enforced. Hiding in the shadows will no longer work. Parents need a stronger law than the authorities and a constitutional amendment is just the needed tool to protect parents and their children from the government.
Let us not forget one other significant change that many of the anti-amendment types have overlooked. In the past, parents faced simple local and state laws. They were poorly worded as described earlier and being at a lower level of government, they were often easier to bypass or overturn. Today, parents face international law, forged in the meetings of international intellects and experts. The laws are crafted much sharper, extend further into the previously safe shadows, and leave no holes through which to slip. If that is not threatening enough, they are infiltrating our country through activist judges without any approval by American citizens or without any warning. New York state and Ohio have already witnessed such use of international law to judge against American parents even without any ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The hope of hiding should be clearly extinguished by now.
With these contemporary realities in mind, the need for the Parental Rights Amendment should be abundantly clear. The amendment protects against international law in our own courts by section 3 which says that no international treaty nor source of international law can supercede or modify this parental right. The amendment also protects parents in the international courts which follow the Vienna Convention of International Law where such language of section 3 affords similar protection. We are no longer living in Kansas and we must face the realities of what is before us as Dorothy did in the land of Oz. What worked in Kansas won’t work today as we face the United Nations and international law.
Often, we find that someone we expect to be an ally, has placed themselves in opposition to our method while maintaining the same goal as we hold dear. Much frustration arises as we struggle to understand why we must work at odds rather than working together towards a goal we both profess and seek wholeheartedly. This has become a common experience in working to protect parental rights in our nation from the threat of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is hard enough to fight against the treaty’s advocates, but to feel betrayed by fellow parents that argue blatantly against your plan of defense against the common foe. The need for a Parental Rights Amendment seems so clear that no one could possibly accuse it of being as dangerous as the United Nations’ plan for raising your children according to their values. However, a number of sincere and outspoken advocates for parental rights are doing just this. At first, this was both irritating and confusing. Then, the key to understanding our divergence was found and unlocked the mystery.
In reading their arguments, one finds good evidence and some good reasoning, but one must look for what is not there. There are several areas of evidence that weigh heavily in the debate which are left out. Suddenly, it is clear. They are operating under the past assumptions of law, society, and precedent. Their plans for defending against the government’s intrusion into family life might work under past laws and national settings. However, today, the vague laws of the past which allowed parents to slide through loopholes of ambiguity or hide in the shadows of vagueness are all but obsolete. The authors of the laws learned from their mistakes and are regrouping with sharper edges on the laws and harder to find loopholes. A simple request for proof of a legal statute in the past was met with authorities backing down as they had nothing to show. However, today, the authorities are coming with stronger laws that can be enforced. Hiding in the shadows will no longer work. Parents need a stronger law than the authorities and a constitutional amendment is just the needed tool to protect parents and their children from the government.
Let us not forget one other significant change that many of the anti-amendment types have overlooked. In the past, parents faced simple local and state laws. They were poorly worded as described earlier and being at a lower level of government, they were often easier to bypass or overturn. Today, parents face international law, forged in the meetings of international intellects and experts. The laws are crafted much sharper, extend further into the previously safe shadows, and leave no holes through which to slip. If that is not threatening enough, they are infiltrating our country through activist judges without any approval by American citizens or without any warning. New York state and Ohio have already witnessed such use of international law to judge against American parents even without any ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The hope of hiding should be clearly extinguished by now.
With these contemporary realities in mind, the need for the Parental Rights Amendment should be abundantly clear. The amendment protects against international law in our own courts by section 3 which says that no international treaty nor source of international law can supercede or modify this parental right. The amendment also protects parents in the international courts which follow the Vienna Convention of International Law where such language of section 3 affords similar protection. We are no longer living in Kansas and we must face the realities of what is before us as Dorothy did in the land of Oz. What worked in Kansas won’t work today as we face the United Nations and international law.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Seeing More Clearly Now
I have struggled to listen many times as well intentioned and bright individuals argue that a Parental Rights Amendment would just open the door to federal control of our families instead of closing it. Often, the evidence that seemed so clear to me, only led them further down their line of reasoning and further away from agreeing with my stance. Then over the course of two or three days, several clarifying points hit me, allowing me to understand how we could see the same evidence and yet come to such polar opposite conclusions. From that illuminating point onward, I looked backward and began to see clearly where the divergences occurred.
A most significant discovery was that to some, most if not all laws are “bad”. Their automatic presupposition was that a new law inherently by its nature either creates limits on liberty or forces actions undesired by the affected citizen. Liberty to them has a great value, and I agree with them on that point. However, while recognizing the great worth of liberty, I recognize the wisdom of our nation’s founders as they understood that liberty does not reside securely in chaos, but in order. The chaos of anarchy, or absence of some degree of governmentally imposed order, offers no guarantee of liberty except to the strongest and wealthiest. They would respond that liberty neither resides in the shadow of a tyrannical government. I agree quite wholeheartedly. Are we then at an impasse?
While liberty finds no security in anarchy nor tyranny, it finds its most secure home in an ordered society where a limited government safeguards the rights of minorities while granting freedom to the majorities. If this is so, then laws are not inherently evil as their perspective proclaims. Yes, laws can be bad, but they are not inherently evil by nature. Laws are only as good as the people that make up the government which creates them. If those of the “all law is bad” persuasion can move past their above revealed presuppositions, they might see some value in an amendment protecting parental rights. While they may still not agree with the exact wording, they could see some value, at least enough to provide constructive input into creating an even better amendment (if such exists) rather than simply dismissing its potential benefit. Then rather than struggling against those such as myself who also seek to protect our parental rights, we could combine our efforts, wisdom, insight, and creativity to fight our real foe, those who want to steal that parental right from us.
A most significant discovery was that to some, most if not all laws are “bad”. Their automatic presupposition was that a new law inherently by its nature either creates limits on liberty or forces actions undesired by the affected citizen. Liberty to them has a great value, and I agree with them on that point. However, while recognizing the great worth of liberty, I recognize the wisdom of our nation’s founders as they understood that liberty does not reside securely in chaos, but in order. The chaos of anarchy, or absence of some degree of governmentally imposed order, offers no guarantee of liberty except to the strongest and wealthiest. They would respond that liberty neither resides in the shadow of a tyrannical government. I agree quite wholeheartedly. Are we then at an impasse?
While liberty finds no security in anarchy nor tyranny, it finds its most secure home in an ordered society where a limited government safeguards the rights of minorities while granting freedom to the majorities. If this is so, then laws are not inherently evil as their perspective proclaims. Yes, laws can be bad, but they are not inherently evil by nature. Laws are only as good as the people that make up the government which creates them. If those of the “all law is bad” persuasion can move past their above revealed presuppositions, they might see some value in an amendment protecting parental rights. While they may still not agree with the exact wording, they could see some value, at least enough to provide constructive input into creating an even better amendment (if such exists) rather than simply dismissing its potential benefit. Then rather than struggling against those such as myself who also seek to protect our parental rights, we could combine our efforts, wisdom, insight, and creativity to fight our real foe, those who want to steal that parental right from us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)