Two entities I struggle to trust, the United Nations and a Congresswoman from California, have teamed up to try to pass a world-wide treaty that would transform parenting forever. Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA) is trying to get the United States government to sign a UN treaty that would, according to the Parental Rights website, accomplish the following:
-Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
-A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
-Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
-The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.
-A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
-According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.
-Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
-Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
-Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
-Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
Perhaps Sen. Boxer's intentions are good; perhaps she is trying to curb child abuse. Obviously, this is all of our intentions as well, but this is not the way to do it. The ramifications of this treaty are mind-boggling. This is a not-so-subtle reminder that we have to be VERY careful about who we put in office. We may blink and find out very soon that the country we once knew and loved is long gone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Ry-
You're so kind to leave comments on my blog; it's only fair that I return the kindness.
The first problem is the issue of national sovereignty. Who's going to enforce the provisions? If we as citizens protest, with what body do we bring our concerns - the Supreme Court? If we don't like the Supreme Court ruling, can we appeal to the World Court in the Netherlands? My understanding is that World Court decisions aren't legally enforceable, but this UN treaty would be? So how can we have a venue to enact worldwide policy (the U.N.) but not a venue to seek justice from it?
Interesting that children could choose their own religion and that parents could only give advice, but not if it's advice about Christianity. O-kaaaaaay. Try enforcing that provision.
What becomes the definition of a child? And, at what point is the age of consent? Is it 16? 12? 8? Are parents still responsible fiscally and legally for actions taken by their children, or can we send the legal bills to the UN? (I'm guessing the parents will be stuck with the bills.) Will children then be allowed to drink in UN-sanctioned bars? Will they be conscripted for duty in UN "peace-keeping" forces? Will they be able to collect an allowance (i.e., "living wage") from the UN (based on a worldwide tax)?
We know where this is going. Another encroachment by the State and attack on the legitimacy of the family as God designed it. Eventually, everything will come under the control of the State, and the only legitimate restraining force against it (the Church) will continue to be legally marginalized: so-called "separation of church and state," anti-church zoning ordinances, hate-speech laws, no legal protection for Good Samaritans - the list is growing.
Got to fight evil wherever it presents itself. No fight is too small. Christopher Hitchens was recently attacked in Lebanon for defacing a street sign that was basically a Nazi symbol for a Syrian national socialist party. He said, "One must take a stand. One simply must." And so we must.
Post a Comment