Are we heading for a global confiscation of the rights of parents to actually be the parents of their own children?
Well, let’s look at today’s news stories for the answer. Homeschoolers are imprisoned and fined in Germany to eliminate “parallel social teachings.” Many American states allow minors not to inform their parents about their abortions. Social indoctrination of the homosexual lifestyle despite PTA objections is being forced into Kindergartens. “Gay” schools are being opened to provide “choice.” Governments fund and export abortion on demand programs for “population control.” The FCC allows music TV, cartoons and kids shows to continuously display parents as out-of-touch morons not to be listened to. DHS can storm into any house and remove a child without the parent having any right to protect their family. Today’s examples from national governments go on and on and on.
From Nazi Germany to Chairman Mao, history has proven that big government will eventually force its way into the family in an attempt to control the next generation’s tender minds and hearts. Their reason is simple to understand — to stay in power.
While various governments try different methods to keep their citizens in “right think,” as George Orwell called it in his scare-your-socks off book 1984 about future government control of its people, the future is almost here as a more global government control method is being developed.
OneNewsNow.com reports in their Jan. 14, 2009 article “Is parental authority on the U.N. chopping block?” by Pete Chagnon that the United Nations is working on getting global ratification of a treaty that would remove parental controls and give them over under their control. Called The Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), the U.N. penned the treaty some 20 years ago in an attempt to create a sort of road map that would guide government officials in the improvement of laws and policies, by defining which rights governments should give children. Ratified by every nation in the world at the time but the United States and Somalia, the U.N. is hoping with a President Obama and Secretary of State “It takes a village to raise a child” Clinton, that the United States will finally sign the treaty.
The result of a globally signed treaty would be detrimental to parents around the world. As Michael Farris, chancellor of Patrick Henry College, explains: “The biggest problem with this treaty is that we replace American law [developed] by our elected officials with international law that is governed by a board of 18 child’s rights experts in Geneva.” Farris elaborates on the treaty’s scope: “The child’s wishes have to be considered by the government, and the government gets to decide at the end of the day… what it thinks is best for the child. That’s in religion, that’s in education, that’s in ‘do you let your kids put their real names on their Facebook accounts?’ On every parenting decision you can imagine, the government gets to make the final call.”
Child abuse, mistreatment and neglect are rampant in the world, and government is certainly needed to deal with these terrible social ills. But, Parentsrights.org argues that this treaty goes way beyond helping to controlling. They warn: “This treaty, harmless as it may appear, is capable of attacking the very core of the child-parent relationship, removing parents from their central role in the growth and development of a child, and replacing them with the long arm of government supervision within the home.”
How would this treaty supplant parental control with U.N. control?
Parentsrights.org reports the treaty stands on two principles that would guide all decisions affecting children: consideration of the “best interests of the child” and the child’s “evolving capacities.” “Best interests of the child” means “except in cases where a parent has been proven to be ‘unfit,’ American law presumes that the parent is acting in the best interests of the child, and defers to that parent’s decision… the Convention, in contrast, supplants this traditional presumption in favor of parents with a new presumption in favor of the state.” “Evolving capacities” says the state sets the blanket standard of maturity, which “rejects the time-proven concept that parents are the most effective advocates of the child’s interests and best understand the maturity and abilities of their children… with one swift move, the treaty cuts parents out of the equation.”
Without even signing the treaty into international law, while the treaty is being ratified by governments around the world, the U.N. could through unwritten law called “customary international law” apply many of the key provisions of the UNCRC to insert the long arm of government intrusion into families in every country. The U.N. implements these controls through government adherence to the treaty, as well as judges that report to the World Court rather than a nation’s sovereign court.
Could the U.N. become our children’s new parents?
They very well could if nobody takes a stand against the rising tide of globalism. But, the ultimate fulfillment of supplanting the rights of parents will fall to what the Bible tells us is the government of the future world leader who will rule all the nations of the globe (Ps. 2:1-2; Dan. 7:23; Rev. 19:19). His will will be absolute, for he will demand worship (Rev. 13:12) and for all to receive his mark of loyalty (Rev. 13:16-18). His false prophet will teach the people what to believe, who to worship, who to hate (Christians and Jews) — totally what to think, feel and act. Indeed, his government will confiscate all parent’s rights to raise their children born during the upcoming 7-year Tribulation.
The United Nations is a weak shadow of an inevitable and powerful future empire. Whatever rights over its member nations the U.N. gathers to itself will be handed over to a leader who will be the “parent” of every one of his subjects (Rev. 17:13).
[To join Parentalrights.org’s fight to support the enactment of a constitutional amendment to protect the fundamental right of parents to raise their children, sign their petition.]