Parental Rights?

http://www.hslda.org/parentalrights/default.asp

Michael Farris argues that should a UN treaty be ratified in the US, we would lose our rights as parents when the government feels we are not acting in the "best interests of the child:"

In 2002, I published a novel, Forbid Them Not (Broadman & Holman), with the premise that a thinly-disguised Hillary Clinton had been elected president. The first act of her new administration was to secure the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). I do not claim the gift of prophecy, but there is a looming possibility that I may be proven right.

If this treaty becomes binding on the United States, the government would have the power to intervene in a child's life “for the best interest of the child.” Currently, the government can intervene in this fashion only by going to court and proving that parents have been abusive or have neglected their children. (This standard also applies in divorce cases on the presumption that the family unit has been broken.) This means that whenever the UN-dominated social services system thought that your parental choices were not the best, the government would have the power to override your choices and protect your child from you. If this treaty becomes binding, all parents would have the same legal status as abusive parents, because the government would have the right to override every parental decision if it deemed the parent's choice contrary to the child's best interest.

Specifically, spanking would be banned under the express terms of the UNCRC. Moreover, children would be required to be taught in a religiously “tolerant manner”. (The American Bar Association, which supports the treaty, has already opined that teaching children that Jesus is the only way to God violates the spirit and meaning of the UNCRC.) The ability to homeschool one's children would become not a right, but a UN-supervised activity that could be overturned if social services personnel believed that it would be “best” for your child to receive another form of education. These are not idle speculations, but the proven result of the UN's own interpretation of the treaty as they have reviewed other nations' compliance with the treaty's provisions.

Here's the difference: No other major nation in the world has a constitutional provision that makes a provision of a treaty automatically part of the “highest law of the land.” This is the Constitution's Achilles heel. In every other nation, the UNCRC is a political liability—if ratified in America, it would be an enforceable and binding law.

/quote.

Farris states that the ONLY thing that would protect parents would be a constitutional amendment. And that would be tough to do because no-one wants to sponsor a bill that detractors would say is a cover for abusive parenting.

Do you think a UN treaty couldn't happen? I don't. I'm very concerned at the erosion of parental rights in places like Germany, Massachusetts and California. We need to be praying for our brothers and sisters facing persecution there. They may not be having their arms chopped off with machetes like those in the Sudan, but they ARE suffering government harassment. We need to stand by them in prayer and in our voting. Let's not just be prideful, roll our eyes and sneer, "Well, that's just California and you know how they are there..." No. How they are there is how they will be "HERE" in five years. And I know there are some servants of God who actually live in places like that! (Like my buddy Daja LOL!)

Please everybody keep watching, praying and voting.