Monday, January 10, 2011

Why are Fundamentalist Christians Opposed to Children Having Rights?

A Fundamentalist Homeschooling Mom who believes those evil secular humanist are out to take her children away from her used these court cases to try to prove that Christians are being persecuted.

Home-schooler ordered to attend public school
In this instance the girls FATHER had requested that she be sent to public school. Unfortunately when parents disagree about the best educational choice for their child a Judge gets to choose. I do find this troubling

In the New Hampshire case, the court ruled that extreme religiosity by itself constitutes grounds on which to rule against a parent's wishes.


We are suppose to enjoy religious freedom in America. But considering the child said this.

The ruling also said Amanda told a counselor she was distressed by her father's refusal to accept her religious beliefs and that "his choice to spend eternity away from her proves that he does not love her as much as he says he does."

I totally understand the ruling. It seems that in Amanda's view accepting her religious beliefs doesn't mean accepting her right to believe them but forcing the Father to believe them too.Certainly the Mother needs to be prevented from brainwashing the child into believing her Father doesn't love her just because his religious views differ from the Mothers. And keep in mind the court was INVITED to intervene by the parents in the custody dispute.

Judge Grants Asylum to German Home Schoolers
Homeschooling is ILLEGAL in Germany.

The reasoning behind the German law, cited by officials and in court cases, is to foster social integration, ensure exposure to people from different backgrounds and prevent what some call “parallel societies.”

“We have had this legal basis ever since the state was founded,” said Thomas Hilsenbeck, a spokesman for the Ministry for Culture, Youth and Sport in the Romeikes’ state, Baden-Württemberg. “This is broadly accepted among the general public.”

The family was breaking the laws of Germany. This does not show that Christians are being persecuted. It also shows that our homeschool freedoms are safe in America where homeschooling is legal in all 50 states.


In a harshly worded decision, the judge, Lawrence O. Burman, denounced the German policy, calling it “utterly repellent to everything we believe as Americans,” and expressed shock at the heavy fines and other penalties the government has levied on home-schooling parents, including taking custody of their children.

As for the The United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child one can only wonder what Fundamentalist Christians find objectionable.

Article 6
1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.
2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.
Article 7
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
Article 9
1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.
2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.
3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests.
Article 12
1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.
Article 13
1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.
2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
Article 14
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.


7 comments:

My Boys' Teacher said...

I'm confused... the way your post is written it seems as if you are support of the UN "Rights of the Child" treaty. You are in support of a treaty which states that "a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child" and which, apparently, leaves it in the hands of the UN to determine what is in the chid's "best interest." And also, later states that "The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. "

What if the UN decides it is not in the child's interest to be "home-schooled." Or that homeschooling is damaging the reputation of public school workers? Or that homeschooling is not good for the "public order?"

If you are NOT in support of this and were being sarcastic, it was a little TOO tongue in cheek for me to pick up on.

Have you investigated the many reasons American parents might oppose this treaty or "can one only wonder?"

I am not fundamentalist by the way.

Alasandra said...

Yes, I am in support of the UN Rights of the Child.

We already have laws that allow the authorities to step in IF a child is being abused or neglected by his parents and yes those laws do include educational neglect. The United States Government would be in charge of implementing the laws in the U.S. We would not have a bunch of U.N. soldiers policing American citizens, which is what you seem to be implying.

My Boys' Teacher said...

How do you know?

NHELD isn't so sure.

http://whyhomeschool.blogspot.com/2006/10/information-from-nheld-on-united.html

The way things are going, the US would just kowtow under to what the UN wants.

http://whyhomeschool.blogspot.com/2009/08/another-reason-to-homeschool-protect.html

Rachel said...

ParentalRights.org has some informative links about the treaty here: http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={97AC9727-7102-4289-82F7-9F6D89D62C83}

Alasandra said...

Ok, I found it
http://nheld.com/StopTheTreaty.htm

I need to do some more research but it seems to me that NHELD's position is that they prefer STRONG states rights and weak Federal Rights. They are opposed to both the Parental Rights Amendment that HSLDA is pushing and the UN Rights of the Child Treaty.

I am not so sure I agree with them as I have seen how State Bullies can force their beliefs on others and strip them of their rights. The Federal Government is far better at protecting my rights then the backward state (MS) I live in is

Alasandra said...

Rachel,
The National Home Education Legal Defense (NHELD) which protects the RIGHTS OF ALL HOMESCHOOLERS, is opposed to the Parental Rights Amendment HSLDA is pushing. Please Read why @ http://nheld.com/BTN67.htm

Anonymous said...

Please look at my blog www.parentalrightstn.blogspot.com for my reasons to oppose the UN CRC. Click on the "series" tag on the left and start with section 1.

The UN CRC is bad for all parents, not just the so called fundamentalists.

Sincerely,
Eric Potter MD
homeschooling dad