Removing Parental Rights To Teach Their Own Children

[Brother Adam]

[url="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/"]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25...y-erode-rights/[/url]

[quote]Sen. Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. to ratify a United Nations measure meant to expand the rights of children, a move critics are calling a gross assault on parental rights that could rob the U.S. of sovereignty.

The California Democrat is pushing the Obama administration to review the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a nearly 20-year-old international agreement that has been foundering on American shores since it was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995 but never ratified.

Critics say the treaty, which creates "[u][b]the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and outlaws the "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy," intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference.[/b][/u]

Nearly every country in the world is party to it -- only the U.S. and Somalia are not -- but the convention has gained little support in the U.S. and never been sent to the Senate for ratification.

That could change soon.

Boxer has made clear her intent to revive the ratification process [b]under the Obama administration, which may be amenable to the move.[/b] During a Senate confirmation hearing last month, Boxer said she considers it "a humiliation" that the U.S. is "standing with Somalia" in refusing to become party to the agreement, while 193 other nations have led the way.

The U.S. is already party to two optional pieces of the treaty regarding child soldiers and child prostitution and pornography, but has refused to sign on to the full agreement, something which has rankled members of Congress, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

"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.

The convention has established a Committee on the Rights of the Child, an 18-member panel in Geneva composed of "persons of high moral character" who review the rights of children in nations that are party to the convention.

But legal experts say the convention does nothing to protect human rights abroad -- and that acceding to the convention would erode U.S. sovereignty.

[u]Because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, all treaties are rendered "the supreme law of the land," superseding preexisting state and federal statutes. Any rights or laws established by the U.N. convention could then be argued to hold sway in the United States.[/u]

[u]"To the extent that an outside body, a group of unaccountable so-called experts in Switzerland have a say over how children in America should be raised, educated and disciplined -- that is an erosion of American sovereignty," said Steven Groves, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.[/u]

Parental rights groups are similarly stirred; they see in the U.N. convention a threat that the government will meddle with even the simplest freedoms to raise their children as they see fit.

[b]"Whether you ground your kids for smoking marijuana, whether you take them to church, whether you let them go to junior prom, all of those things . . . will be the government's decision," said Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org. "It will affect every parent who's told their children to do the dishes." [/b]

Groves said that erosion has already begun, as the Supreme Court has referred to the wide acceptance of the child-rights law in conferring legal protections on minors in the U.S.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority opinion in the 2005 decision banning the death penalty for minors, noted that "every country in the world has ratified [the convention] save for the United States and Somalia."

Proponents of the convention in the U.S. stress that it will help secure human rights abroad.

"Now, all you have to do is look around the world and see these girls that are having acid thrown in their face," Boxer said in January, implying that the U.S. refusal to come aboard has led to abuses elsewhere.[/quote]

[homeschoolmom]

Yeah, that woman is nuts. Let's just have a bunch of kids who can run wild and no one can do anything to shape them.

Stop the world, I wanna get off.

[Brother Adam]

I'm not so much worried about anarchy as I am worried about goverment-think. I want to get off too.

[Nihil Obstat]

Humiliated to be standing with Somalia?
Somalia doesn't really stand with anything or anyone, you know, not having a functioning government of anything.

[Jesus_lol]

well, if what the article says is true...
i live in canada under that law, never seen anything to do with it. if the USA is the last country without this law, and somehow all these other countries manage to raise their children just fine(often with higher education and literacy) maybe its being paranoid to think this will somehow adversely affect how your children can be raised.

[Excelsior1027]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1791806' date='Feb 26 2009, 08:22 AM']Stop the world, I wanna get off. [/quote]
That just became my quote of the day.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1791888' date='Feb 26 2009, 12:55 PM']well, if what the article says is true...
i live in canada under that law, never seen anything to do with it. if the USA is the last country without this law, and somehow all these other countries manage to raise their children just fine(often with higher education and literacy) maybe its being paranoid to think this will somehow adversely affect how your children can be raised.[/quote]

Isn't yours the country where priests are thrown before human rights commissions and jailed for speaking the Catholic faith? it's not paranoia at all. Other countries under this system have all but outlawed home schooling and children are routinely indoctrinated with an anti-Christian philosophy.

[scardella]

I find it quite ironic that these politicians are [b]likely[/b] amongst those people staunchly in support of abortion. (Note: I'm assuming here based on where they're from, so feel free to prove me wrong.)

From the article:
[quote]"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.[/quote]

Oh the irony!!!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Hold on...she's embarrassed because we stand alone with Somalia...did the Vatican sign this thing?

If we stand with the Vatican, hey, forget Somalia. I'm proud.

[Zoecool13]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1791986' date='Feb 26 2009, 02:59 PM']Hold on...she's embarrassed because we stand alone with Somalia...did the Vatican sign this thing?

If we stand with the Vatican, hey, forget Somalia. I'm proud.[/quote]


The Holy See was one of the very first to sign this on September 2, 1990, with the following reservations and declarations:

Reservations:

"a) [The Holy See] interprets the phrase `Family planning education and services' in article 24.2, to mean only those methods of family planning which it considers morally acceptable, that is, the natural methods of family planning.

"b) [The Holy See] interprets the articles of the Convention in a way which safeguards the primary and inalienable rights of parents, in particular insofar as these rights concern education (articles 13 and 28), religion (article 14), association with others (article 15) and privacy (article 16).

"c) [The Holy See declares] that the application of the Convention be compatible in practice with the particular nature of the Vatican City State and of the sources of its objective law (art. 1, Law of 7 June 1929, n. 11) and, in consideration of its limited extent, with its legislation in the matters of citizenship, access and residence."

Declaration:

"The Holy See regards the present Convention as a proper and laudable instrument aimed at protecting the rights and interests of children, who are 'that precious treasure given to each generation as a challenge to its wisdom and humanity' (Pope John Paul II, 26 April 1984).

"The Holy See recognizes that the Convention represents an enactment of principles previously adopted by the United Nations, and once effective as a ratified instrument, will safeguard the rights of the child before as well as after birth, as expressly affirmed in the `Declaration of the Rights of the Child' [Res. 136 (XIV)] and restated in the ninth preambular paragraph of the Convention. The Holy See remains confident that the ninth preambular paragraph will serve as the perspective through which the rest of the Convention will be interpreted, in conformity with article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969.

"By acceding to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Holy See intends to give renewed expression to its constant concern for the well-being of children and families. In consideration of its singular nature and position, the Holy See, in acceding to this Convention, does not intend to prescind in any way from its specific mission which is of a religious and moral character."

Those that say or think this is a bad thing, I say to you that this is a very good treaty that we should be a part of.

Edited February 26, 2009 by Zoecool13

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Zoecool13' post='1792035' date='Feb 26 2009, 06:15 PM']The Holy See was one of the very first to sign this on September 2, 1990, with the following reservations and declarations:

Reservations:

"a) [The Holy See] interprets the phrase `Family planning education and services' in article 24.2, to mean only those methods of family planning which it considers morally acceptable, that is, the natural methods of family planning.

"b) [The Holy See] interprets the articles of the Convention in a way which safeguards the primary and inalienable rights of parents, in particular insofar as these rights concern education (articles 13 and 28), religion (article 14), association with others (article 15) and privacy (article 16).

"c) [The Holy See declares] that the application of the Convention be compatible in practice with the particular nature of the Vatican City State and of the sources of its objective law (art. 1, Law of 7 June 1929, n. 11) and, in consideration of its limited extent, with its legislation in the matters of citizenship, access and residence."

Declaration:

"The Holy See regards the present Convention as a proper and laudable instrument aimed at protecting the rights and interests of children, who are 'that precious treasure given to each generation as a challenge to its wisdom and humanity' (Pope John Paul II, 26 April 1984).

"The Holy See recognizes that the Convention represents an enactment of principles previously adopted by the United Nations, and once effective as a ratified instrument, will safeguard the rights of the child before as well as after birth, as expressly affirmed in the `Declaration of the Rights of the Child' [Res. 136 (XIV)] and restated in the ninth preambular paragraph of the Convention. The Holy See remains confident that the ninth preambular paragraph will serve as the perspective through which the rest of the Convention will be interpreted, in conformity with article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969.

"By acceding to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Holy See intends to give renewed expression to its constant concern for the well-being of children and families. In consideration of its singular nature and position, the Holy See, in acceding to this Convention, does not intend to prescind in any way from its specific mission which is of a religious and moral character."

Those that say or think this is a bad thing, I say to you that this is a very good treaty that we should be a part of.[/quote]
I suggest you go online and read it the devil is truly in the details.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='1791937' date='Feb 26 2009, 12:09 PM']Isn't yours the country where priests are thrown before human rights commissions and jailed for speaking the Catholic faith? it's not paranoia at all. Other countries under this system have all but outlawed home schooling and children are routinely indoctrinated with an anti-Christian philosophy.[/quote]
The very same Canada.

The reason we don't feel the effect in Canada, I believe, is that I think that home schooling works differently in the US. It seems to be a more common, more fought for thing, but in Canada, it's really a non-issue by and large.

[Zoecool13]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1792055' date='Feb 26 2009, 06:11 PM']I suggest you go online and read it the devil is truly in the details.[/quote]


Are you implying that John Paul II would approve satanic messages? Because If you're saying the devil is in this message (which I've read, and do not see), then you're saying that JP2 was accepting of the devil.

From his letter on Sept. 22, 1990:

"The Holy See’s prompt accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 20, 1989 accords with the Catholic Church’s bi-millenary tradition of service to those in material or spiritual need, especially the weaker members of the human family, among whom children have always received special attention. In the Child of Bethlehem, Christians contemplate the uniqueness, the dignity and the need for love of every child. In the example and teaching of her Founder, the Church perceives a mandate to devote special care to the needs of children (Cfr. Marc. 10,14); indeed, in the Christian view, our treatment of children becomes a measure of our fidelity to the Lord himself (Cfr. Matth. 18,5).

The Church has a vivid perception of the immense burden of suffering and injustice borne by the children of the world. In my own ministry and pastoral journeys, I am a witness of the heartbreaking plight of millions of children in every continent. They are most vulnerable, because they are least able to make their voice heard. My contribution to this Summit, Mr Secretary General, is meant to reinforce before this powerful Assembly the often wordless but no less legitimate and insistent appeal which the children of the world address to those who have the means and the responsibility to make better provision for them.

The children of the world cry out for love. In this case love stands for the real concern of one human being for another, for the good that each owes to the other in the bond of our common humanity. A child cannot survive physically, psychologically and spiritually without the solidarity which makes us all responsible for all, a responsibility which assumes particular intensity in the self-giving love of parents for their offspring.

The Holy See attributes particular significance to the fact that the Convention recognizes the irreplaceable role of the family in fostering the growth and well-being of its members. The family is the first and vital cell of society because of its service to life and because it is the first school of the social virtues that are the animating principle of the existence and development of society itself. The well-being of the world’s children therefore depends greatly on the measures taken by States to support and help families to fulfil their natural life-giving and formative functions.

The children of the world cry out for greater respect for their inalienable individual dignity and for their right to life from the first moment of conception, even in the face of difficult circumstances or personal handicap. Every individual, no matter how small or how seemingly unimportant in utilitarian terms, bears the imprint of the Creator’s image and likeness (Cfr. Gen 1,26). Policies and actions which do not recognize that unique condition of innate dignity cannot lead to a more just and humane world, for they go against the very values which determine objective moral categories and which form the basis of rational moral judgments and right actions.

The International Convention on the Rights of the Child constitutes a statement of priorities and obligations which can serve as a reference point and stimulus for action on behalf of children everywhere. The Holy See gladly acceded to and endorses the Convention on the understanding that goals, programmes and actions stemming from it will respect the moral and religious convictions of those to whom they are directed, in particular the moral convictions of parents regarding the transmission of life, with no urging to resort to means which are morally unacceptable, as well as their freedom in relation to the religious life and education of their children. Children who are to learn to be supportive of their fellow man must learn the reality of mutually supportive relationships in the family itself, where there is profound respect for all human life, unborn as well as born, and where both mother and father jointly make responsible decisions regarding the exercise of their parenthood."


Either way, I don't see how anyone could think caring for children is a bad thing, let alone be the work of the devil.

[Pauly Walnuts]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1791806' date='Feb 26 2009, 09:22 AM']Yeah, that woman is nuts. Let's just have a bunch of kids who can run wild and no one can do anything to shape them.

Stop the world, I wanna get off. [/quote]

me too

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Zoecool13' post='1792108' date='Feb 26 2009, 10:07 PM']Are you implying that John Paul II would approve satanic messages? Because If you're saying the devil is in this message (which I've read, and do not see), then you're saying that JP2 was accepting of the devil.

From his letter on Sept. 22, 1990:

"The Holy See’s prompt accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 20, 1989 accords with the Catholic Church’s bi-millenary tradition of service to those in material or spiritual need, especially the weaker members of the human family, among whom children have always received special attention. In the Child of Bethlehem, Christians contemplate the uniqueness, the dignity and the need for love of every child. In the example and teaching of her Founder, the Church perceives a mandate to devote special care to the needs of children (Cfr. Marc. 10,14); indeed, in the Christian view, our treatment of children becomes a measure of our fidelity to the Lord himself (Cfr. Matth. 18,5).

The Church has a vivid perception of the immense burden of suffering and injustice borne by the children of the world. In my own ministry and pastoral journeys, I am a witness of the heartbreaking plight of millions of children in every continent. They are most vulnerable, because they are least able to make their voice heard. My contribution to this Summit, Mr Secretary General, is meant to reinforce before this powerful Assembly the often wordless but no less legitimate and insistent appeal which the children of the world address to those who have the means and the responsibility to make better provision for them.

The children of the world cry out for love. In this case love stands for the real concern of one human being for another, for the good that each owes to the other in the bond of our common humanity. A child cannot survive physically, psychologically and spiritually without the solidarity which makes us all responsible for all, a responsibility which assumes particular intensity in the self-giving love of parents for their offspring.

The Holy See attributes particular significance to the fact that the Convention recognizes the irreplaceable role of the family in fostering the growth and well-being of its members. The family is the first and vital cell of society because of its service to life and because it is the first school of the social virtues that are the animating principle of the existence and development of society itself. The well-being of the world’s children therefore depends greatly on the measures taken by States to support and help families to fulfil their natural life-giving and formative functions.

The children of the world cry out for greater respect for their inalienable individual dignity and for their right to life from the first moment of conception, even in the face of difficult circumstances or personal handicap. Every individual, no matter how small or how seemingly unimportant in utilitarian terms, bears the imprint of the Creator’s image and likeness (Cfr. Gen 1,26). Policies and actions which do not recognize that unique condition of innate dignity cannot lead to a more just and humane world, for they go against the very values which determine objective moral categories and which form the basis of rational moral judgments and right actions.

The International Convention on the Rights of the Child constitutes a statement of priorities and obligations which can serve as a reference point and stimulus for action on behalf of children everywhere. The Holy See gladly acceded to and endorses the Convention on the understanding that goals, programmes and actions stemming from it will respect the moral and religious convictions of those to whom they are directed, in particular the moral convictions of parents regarding the transmission of life, with no urging to resort to means which are morally unacceptable, as well as their freedom in relation to the religious life and education of their children. Children who are to learn to be supportive of their fellow man must learn the reality of mutually supportive relationships in the family itself, where there is profound respect for all human life, unborn as well as born, and where both mother and father jointly make responsible decisions regarding the exercise of their parenthood."


Either way, I don't see how anyone could think caring for children is a bad thing, let alone be the work of the devil.[/quote]
The phrase "the devil is in the details" means there is stuff in there in the fine print that is very very bad. If you read the entire document it says that the government NOT the parents has the final say of how you raise your children. Again - go read the document.