Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Parents vs.Children

I originally wrote this for my MySpace blog a little over 2 years ago.  If anyone is aware of the current status of the US ratifing this treaty, please let me know.

I’d been hearing a lot about this Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) thing. Apparently, the United States and Somalia are the only two nations that have not ratified this UN treaty. This treaty proposes that we give children rights, and this has some Christians angry and scared. I looked at treaty and this is what I think.

When I started reading up on this topic, I really had no idea why the idea of children having rights was so scary to believers. I didn’t know if this was based on some weird scripture passage, (like when Christians oppose gay marriage) or if it was based on dogma (like when they teach abstinence only sex education). I mean, even Christians want what is best for their kids, right?

Let’s talk about the criticisms of the CRC. These come from Lead by Michael Farris, this group outlines the following as the perils of giving children rights. I respond in italics. Original text is bold.

“Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC:”

• Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

o I can’t find this language in the treaty. Maybe I am not reading it properly, but I really tried to find this, because I think making spanking a federal offence is silly. But that might be why I don’t actually see this in the treaty. Because it is FALSE. If someone can point out to me how the treaty bans spanking, please let me know.

• A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

o I’m okay with this.

• Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

o Oh, yeah! I REALLY dig this!

• 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.

o If a parent is unwilling or unable to make decisions that ARE indeed in the best interest of the child, someone has to do so.

• 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.

o This is a bit of a stretch. I mean, the treaty DOES say they the child will be heard and given consideration based upon the age and maturity of the child. I highly doubt you will see court case where 4-year-olds are questioning an 8:30pm bedtime.

• According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.

o Awww. You mean we would have to make children a bigger priority than war? Well that’s just a terrible idea!

• Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

o I’m okay with this. Are there seriously parents who would refuse to allow their children to play? I’m not talking about discipline. Neither is the treaty. It acknowledges that play is vital to a child’s growth.

• 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.


So these are the complaints, eh? I hardly see a threat here at all, but Farris is terrified. He has drafted an Amendment to the Constitution to block this. Yeah, right, like that’s going to happen. We’re going to amend to the Constitution so we don’t have to protect our children. Right.

I’d like to propose why Farris and those who agree with him are so scared. We see more and more parents refusing to give their children medical treatment and praying for them instead. This treaty would obviously put a quick end to that nonsense. When parents want to indoctrinate their children with creationist or intelligent design foolishness, this treaty would keep such discussions outside the science classroom, even if that classroom was the child’s living room. It would abolish the death penalty for children. Yes, Texas likes to put children to death. The United States has more children on death row than any other country in the UN. This treaty would solve that problem. It would also end abstinence only sex education for good. Our tax dollars would finally be paying for real, honest and comprehensive sex education.

As a parent, my first instinct is always to protect my children. But we all know there are parents out there that just plain suck. If you pray for a cold to go away instead of giving a child a hot bowl of chicken soup, you’re the parent that sucks. If you feel threatened in any way by your child learning about evolution and science, you are a sucky parent. If you think children deserve the death penalty, you REALLY suck. This treaty is designed to protect children from you.

Fortunately, we are close to ratifying this treaty. Hillary Clinton was a big supporter of the treaty when her husband signed it as president. Now, she, as Secretary of State, is responsible to present it to congress. I look forward to its presentation soon, and expect it to breeze through the process. President Obama said it was embarrassing for the US to find itself alone with Somalia in not ratifying the treaty, calling Somalia a lawless state.

Giving rights to children should not threaten us as parents, unless we know we suck and recognize this treaty will force us to admit it and change.


  1. I found this by mistake. After reading it, I would like to tell you that you're a narcissistic moron. I hope having your own blog makes you feel more comfortable with who you are. It seems to me you're trying harder to convince yourself that you're right than you are anyone else.

    1. Gosh. It seems like you posted by mistake.