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.

The Gay Agenda in Schools

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

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

Good Morning Snow!

Good morning,

As many of you look out onto snowy landscapes this morning in Tennessee, don't forget to thank God for the beauty of creation and his tender mercies. His mercies are new every morning (Lamentations 3:22-23).

Also, don't forget to thank God for the freedoms which we now enjoy, the freedom to pass a family heritage of faith and values to our children. Not all people across the globe enjoy this freedom nor have all our ancestors across the timeline. Finally, don't forget that we are not promised this freedom. A formidable adversary is working to ensnare our children in deceptive philosophies, if not outright destroy their faith before it even blooms.

Simultaneously, Deuteronomy 6 and Ephesians 6 leave us no excuse for complacency. We are commanded to instruct our children with the promise of God's effective Word, expecting the bearing of fruit where we diligently sow the seed of the Word. May we never grow weary in this calling and may we never forget to be eternally vigilant in protecting this freedom. Lord, forgive us where we have forgotten, where we have neglected, where we have disobeyed, and give us renewed vision as well as strength in obeying your clear command.

Board of Education Socializing Children

A past Renew America article caught my attention while searching their archives for parental rights stories. The majority of the article warns us of United Nations' efforts at globalization, but a quote towards the end of the article struck me as very alarming for parents. Although I underlined the quote's most worrisome verbage below, I want to explain the reason for my concern.

This legislation directed the Illinois State Board of Education to develop and to implement a policy aimed at the social and emotional development of children. Furthermore, they were directed to incorporate these standards into the Illinois Learning Standards. They are now guidelines for directing and measuring school's success in educating children. The schools are directed and empowered to direct children's social development. Bureaucrats on the state Board of Education will be deciding how to "socialize" Illinois children. I don't know about you, but this concerns me. May God prevent this from happening in Tennessee (oh my, I don't know that we don't already have this in place???)!


"This In the document of the 94th General Assembly, State of Illinois, 2005 and 2006, HB 1382 amends the Children's Mental Health Act of 2003. Makes a technical change in a Section concerning a children's mental health plan.

It states in Section 5(a) The State of Illinois shall develop a
Children's Mental Health Plan containing short-term and long-term recommendations to provide comprehensive, coordinated mental health prevention, early intervention, and treatment services for children from birth through age 18.

In Section 15(a) Mental health and schools it states that The Illinois State Board of Education shall develop and implement a plan to incorporate social and emotional development standards as part of the Illinois Learning Standards for the purpose of enhancing and measuring children's school readiness and ability to achieve academic success."

For the link to this Illinois public act GO HERE.

The Coming Persecution!

Two lines of reasoning have so far failed in their attempts to crush the homeschooling movement. One claimed that homeschooling was far inferior academically...Ha-Ha! The other claimed that homeschooled children are not socialized...another hearty laugh. Both of these claims have been thoroughly debunked in recent years.

HSLDA's Nov./Dec. edition of the Homeschool Court Report describes "The Third Wave of homeschool persecution" with breathtaking quotes of legal experts opposed to homeschooling, particularly Christian homeschooling. Rather than my choosing from among these quotes and possibly distracting you from going to read the article yourself, I will simply urge you to go to THE ARTICLE by providing enough of an appetizer to push you over the "I'll look at it later hump".

In short, the legal community, mainly international human rights proponents, has begun to express their long held views regarding parents' rights to teach their own children Christian views of right and wrong. We are finding these opinions in the academic legal writings of many human rights advocates. Soon they will begin pressing these views in the court room and the legislatures. They state unequivocally that the teaching of views adherent to absolute truths, i.e. there is only one true religion and all others are false, should not be permitted.

Will parents and the church sit back and wait for this to happen? Better yet, will you sit back and wait while the state comes to replace your children's Christian worldview and their view of tolerance and relativism? Please take a small step forward today in this battle by either forwarding this to a friend or sharing the linked article with another parent. Your participiation in this work is vital to its success.

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.