Protecting the Rights of Parents

Thanks to Garak on Antimisandry for bringing this to my attention.

From World Net Daily....the bolding is mine, and I would recommend visiting the website to view the full article which includes a short clip along with various other links to additional information.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93333

ON CAPITOL HILL
Who will raise kids: Mom, Dad or state?
Parental rights: 67 in Congress pushing to amend Constitution

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 29, 2009
6:52 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich.

Though efforts to pass a constitutional amendment protecting parental rights have failed in the past, two U.S. legislators are preparing to reintroduce the idea this week; and this time, they say, the effort is backed by more than 60 congressional members.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., who introduced a parental rights amendment by himself last year, told the Agence France-Presse that he will be joined by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., on Tuesday as they renew the fight.

According to a statement released to AFP by Hoekstra's office, the amendment "would clearly outline in the U.S. Constitution that parents, not government or any other organization, have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit."

"At a time when government at every level seems to encroach upon the ability of parents to choose the best for their children," Hoekstra writes on his website, "it is important to preserve parental rights into the Constitution."

Discover the mindset behind the establishment of today's system of mass education, and where has it led us as a society with "The Little Book of Big Reasons to Homeschool."

Last summer Hoekstra introduced H.J.R. 97, proposing a constitutional amendment stating that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed upon by federal, state, or international treaty law without demonstrating government interest "of the highest order." Hoekstra asserts that legitimate cases of abuse and neglect fall under the "demonstrated government interest" clause.

Without any co-sponsors, however, H.J.R 97 died in committee.

According to ParentalRights.org, an organization dedicated to seeing the amendment passed, this year's effort, in addition to senatorial support from DeMint, has recruited 65 U.S. representatives who have committed to joining Hoekstra in co-sponsoring a parental rights amendment.

As WND reported, the president of the world's premier homeschool advocacy organization made a case for the amendment in a Washington Times commentary published last year:

"Few dispute the vital role of parents in raising the next generation, but, regrettably, few recognize that the fundamental role of parents is under direct attack," wrote J. Michael Smith, president of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association.

Smith pointed to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, an internation treaty approved by the Clinton administration but stalled by opposition in the Senate, as one example of governmental attempts to infringe on parental rights.

"It's possible that in the near future, the United States may significantly weaken the rights of parents to raise their children," Smith wrote. "Crucial decisions that parents are accustomed to making, such as what our children read, who they associate with, what kind of discipline is used, whether we take them to church, or whether we homeschool, all become decisions for the state if the United States ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child."

He continued, "By allowing the government to define and determine what is in the 'best interests of the child,' outside the context of abuse and neglect cases, the UNCRC in effect diminishes the parental role, replacing it with government supervision."
As WND reported, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., last month urged a hurry-up timetable for adoption of the UNCRC.

"Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected," Boxer said, according to Fox News.

Critics like Smith, however, argue the document, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" usurps the role of parents in directing their children's upbringing......

Opponents of the amendment, such as those that opposed a Colorado state version proposed in the 1990's, argue that the measure would protect child abusers, make public schools a battleground for parents' ideological issues and prevent teenage students from receiving sex education and family planning services through their schools.

Rob Boston, assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State argued against the amendment in a blog post last month, making many of the same arguments lodged against the Colorado initiative.

Boston also argued that the amendment is a back door approach to mixing public education dollars and religion, claiming through the amendment "states would be forced to give parents tuition vouchers for private and religious schooling since the right to direct a child's education would be enshrined in the Constitution."

Sen. DeMint, who will join Hoekstra in offering the amendment, has been involved in similar legislation in the past. DeMint was a co-sponsor of the Parents' Rights Empowerment and Protection Act of 2007, which required schools to obtain written parental permission before teaching children about sex or sexuality.

DeMint's bill, like Hoekstra's in 2008, never made it out of committee.

To succeed, the amendment Hoekstra and DeMint plan to introduce Tuesday will need to pass in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate by two-thirds majorities each, then win ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Once again, we see government pushing people to relinquish their rights as parents, handing all authority and decision making powers over to the state.....all in the best interests of the children....of course.

Take special note of the following,

Critics like Smith, however, argue the document, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" usurps the role of parents in directing their children's upbringing.

If the U.S. were to ratify the UNCRC (and let's keep in mind that the Clinton administration was in favor of doing so....any guesses where the current administration is likely to stand on the subject?) the ability of parents to raise their children would cease to exist. Your child could reasonably take you to court for teaching them any beliefs they didn't agree with under the pretense that it was in violation of their rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The state could charge you for violating your child's rights by teaching them your religion and values.

This is just one more nail in the coffin of the family....one more attempt to break essential familial ties and cede all authority over to the government. Undoubtedly, those in support of UNCRC will argue it's a good thing....after all, what kind of person doesn't want to protect innocent children from hideous abuses. THIS is a tactic used to play upon our emotions, all while disguising the true agenda.....expansion of government and consequential loss of God given rights.

Garak has provided the number for the Congressman's Washington D.C. office, (202) 225-4401, so people can call him and express their support for an amendment to protect parental rights. I would also encourage everyone to contact your state's congressional representatives, as their votes that will determine whether or not this amendment will pass.

A Code For Women Part II

"In all this world there is no substitute for personal integrity. It includes honor. It includes performance. It includes keeping one's word. It includes doing what is right regardless of the circumstances" -Gordon B. Hinckley

I’ve chosen to focus on Integrity next for a couple of reasons, one being that it is what I consider to be an attribute above all else….the mother of all values, if you will. It is also an attribute that is severely lacking in today’s society. Doing what’s right is seldom given much fanfare…especially when it’s done for no other reason than because it’s the right thing to do….but ultimately, this is the only reason to do what’s right.

Integrity denotes an adherence to an uncompromising moral code and it walks hand in hand with honesty, along with every other virtue I plan on addressing here. It is defining for ourselves what is right and what is wrong and then refusing to sway from those convictions. Without integrity any concept of a code of behavior is lost because it becomes merely words without meaning or corresponding actions.

We’re often presented with the image of women as whimsical creatures who are apt (and entitled) to changing their minds at the drop of the hat. This characteristic is portrayed as somewhat cute and endearing. I suppose if we’re talking about a penchant for rearranging the furniture this might hold true but it tends to extend into all aspects of our lives to the extent of frequently compromising our integrity and calling into question our ability to commit and be trusted.

Women tend to expect to be excluded from honoring their commitments and obligations because, as women, they reserve the right to change their mind. How many men are given the unattested option to change their mind to the detriment on others? Can they walk away from the wives they marry, the children they help create, the obligations they’ve taken on free from judgment or negative consequences simply because they’ve changed their minds?

Of course not, and they shouldn’t be able to either….but neither should we. Personally, I would rather die than compromise my integrity. There’s only so much that I have sole ownership of and complete control over. My integrity is one of these things. It is what defines me and I refuse to ever give that up.

That being said, how do we wish to define ourselves? Do we want to be fickle in nature? Do we surrender our integrity for the ability to avoid being someone who can be depended on simply to reserve the right to change our minds?

Growing up, I was often told the story of a young man who went in his father’s stead to conduct a business transaction. When the discussion came to matters of payment, he was told not to worry, for it was well known that his father’s word was as good as his bond. This is who we should be. This above all is what is important….that we be the kind of people who encompass trustworthiness, honesty and accountability.

A quote I’m quite fond of is “Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching”. When we have integrity we do what is right simply because it’s who we are and how we choose to define ourselves. We desire to do what’s right and we don’t accept anything less from ourselves, regardless of the circumstances. We don’t fall into the trap that we as women have made for ourselves….our selective morality where we’re able to rationalize away responsibility for our commitments. We stand up and say this is who we are, this is who we’ve decided to be….women of integrity and, as such, we cannot be anything less.