Sham homeschools are fostering a radical right wing fifth column
Until the 1980s homeschooling was a benign activity that affected very few children. After homeschooling became dominated by right wing Christian theocrats, millions of vulnerable children (estimates are suspect because of poor reporting requirements) became virtual prisoners in their own homes, pawns in a scheme to overthrow the United States Government and replace it with a theocracy. The theocrats scheme includes lobbying state legislatures, pressing free exercise of religion cases in the courts and collusion with extreme right wing Republican officials. The result is an almost total lack of oversight by government officials. It will require dedication for the new administration to undo the Bush administration handiwork.
Legitimate homeschools are in league with the sham homeschools because they also want to prohibit any kind of oversight or control. Although the legitimate people have a small public voice, the radical right are loaded with resources and lobbyists.
The Supreme Court gave parents the right to teach children the tenets and the practices of their faith back in 1944. (Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 164 (1944). The Prince decision, together with the Yoder vs Wisconsin decision inspired theocratic zealots to create a rebellious strain of home schooling. Lead by radicals, this movement is creating a virtual fifth column of ignorant children raised to hate democracy and to revile and distrust their government institutions. In this way, the theocrats are systematically grooming innocent children through a staged process involving homeschools, a project called Generation Joshua and the Patrick Henry College. Their aim is to quietly infiltrate, hamper, frustrate and then dismantle the government of the United States and establish a theocracy according to Dominionist theology. The theocrats plan seems to be working because the Bush administration opened the doors of government to Patrick Henry College graduates while the general public has taken little notice. But then, the devious theocrats are anything but honest and above board. They are like cockroaches, termites and other vermin that hide out of sight. They will not advocate a public position because they know they cannot win an honest public debate.
No one contemplated the political power extreme right wing Christians would usurp in the latter decades of the 20st century. Nor, how they would first systematically attack the public school system and then in frustration, how they would begin to withdraw their children from public schools in astonishing numbers. Able to mobilize thousands of parents to swamp legislatures with denial of service calls and emails, they steam rolled their agenda of removing truancy laws across the country. There was little or no opposition from the federal or state governments, who depend upon reliable telephone and Internet connections to operate. Denial of service attacks combined with bare knuckle political threats became weapons of choice and are still used today. HSLDA even brags about their success in hampering the functioning of government.
With sequestered children constantly supervised by zealous despotic parents, the indoctrination of a backward debauched religion can take place 24 hours a day seven days a week. Out of sight, the indoctrination goes unnoticed. The unfortunate children’s parents rigorously shield them from civilian authority, and they are not allowed to associate with anyone that has not been pre-approved. Parents heavily monitor and restrict radio, television, movies, the Internet and live entertainment events. When legal problems threaten, parents use the threadbare guise of sacrosanct religious liberty and call on well heeled advocacy groups like Michael Farris’s Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), Focus on the Family, The Pacific Justice Institute, and The Eagle Forum to name just a few far right heavily funded special interest groups of dubious character.
In these families, there will be no nonsense about Title 9 gender equality, or sex education or tolerance of other’s beliefs; parents are convinced they alone have the truth and all outsiders are Satan’s spawn that are going to hell. There is no effort to teach the children how to reason or make moral judgments based on logic; morality lessons consist of picked over biblical dogma.
This trend has been in place for nearly 20 years and has spawned a vast infrastructure of lobbyists, legal assistance groups, and purveyors of “approved” curriculum materials. Many curriculum materials advertise that they teach subjects in a “godly” way. Believe it or not there are even teaching materials that extend this pedagogy to mathematics!
Dr. Rob Reich (Professor of Political Science and Ethics at Stanford University ) explains what he considers is the major problem in terms of parents deliberately frustrating the development of autonomy in their children:
The problem with homeschooling and parental authority over education arises not out of conflicts over whether children should become independent adults. Few people wish to defend the authority of parents who plainly care too little. The problem arises over parents who, as it were, care too much in seeking to prevent the development of autonomy in their children. I mean to suggest that parents who wish to control the socialization of their children so completely as to instill inerrant beliefs in their own world view or unquestioning obedience to their own or others’ authority are motivated often by a fervent care for, not neglect of their children. Even when defined minimally, some parents may object to the idea that their children should receive an education that promotes their critical thinking and capacities for reflection on their own and other’s ends. Being minimally autonomous, I claimed, was in the interest of the child for personal and civic reasons. The fact that autonomy is necessary for citizenship makes education for autonomy an interest of the state as well. Thus, when parents reject the facilitation of autonomy in their children, they find themselves in conflict with both the interests of the child and of the state.
A measure of just how thoroughly the theocrats took control of the US Department of Education can be gained by the comments made by Jack Klenk, Director of the Office of Non Public Education at the U.S. Department of Education at a recent meeting sponsored by the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA a vociferous foe of homeschool oversight ) and featuring eight congressional representatives . Here is part of the HSLDA report on their web site:
Mr. Klenk has served in the Department for over 20 years, and he talked about how he has seen homeschooling start and grow through the years. He also acknowledged that the Department of Education has heard the homeschool community’s message that the “federal government must leave homeschoolers alone,” and will honor that message. He closed by sharing his and the current administration’s belief that “homeschooling is good for children, good for families, and good for society.
Have we no right to expect impartial judgments emanating from such a high government official? Mr Klenk has hopefully departed to other pursuits by this time, if he has not been fired.
The corrupt Bush administration and his allied theocrats were determined to surreptitiously undermine and drag down the government of the United States. Accordingly, it should be obvious to Americans that the Obama administration must act decisively to regulate homeschools on an urgent basis.
Professor Rob Reich proposed the following provisional framework some years ago:
A PROVISIONAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR HOME SCHOOLING
Recall that the purpose of these regulations is to help ensure that the state’s interest in providing a civic education for children is met, and to protect the independent interest of the child in developing into a free or autonomous adult. … I propose three minimal regulations. The results of the democratic process might yield additional regulations, which would not necessarily be inconsistent with my views, but these seem to me the bare minimum, as follows:1. All parents who home school must register with a public official. The state needs to be able to distinguish between truants and home-schooled students, and it needs a record that specific children are being home schooled so that its other regulations can be enforced.
2. Parents must demonstrate to educational officials that their homeschool curriculum meets some minimal standard. The minimal standard will include academic benchmarks as well as an assurance that children are exposed to and engaged with ideas, values, and beliefs that are different from those of the parents. For instance, every home-school curriculum should include information about a variety of religious traditions (I believe this should be the case, as well, for public and private schools.) Parents are free to teach their children that their own religious faith is the truth, but they cannot shield children from the knowledge that other people have different convictions and that these people are, from the standpoint of citizenship, their equals.
3. Parents must permit their children to be tested periodically on some kind of basic skills exam. Should home-schooled children repeatedly fail to make progress on this exam, relative to their public or private school peers, then a case could be made to compel school attendance. Label this educational harm. (The same kind of educational harm surely exists in some public schools, of course. And this is one reason that I believe parents should have the authority to hold the state accountable for public schools by pulling their children from failing schools and enrolling them elsewhere.) In short, these regulations amount to the following:
• The state registers who is being home schooled.
• The state insists upon a curriculum that meets minimal academic standards and that introduces students to value pluralism.
• The state tests students periodically to ensure that minimal academic progress is being made.Would many home schools be unable to meet these regulations? …. If creating and enforcing regulations would prevent even a few children from suffering educational harm or from receiving an education that stunted or disabled their freedom, the regulations would be worthwhile. Strictly enforced regulations ensure that parents do not wield total and unchecked authority over the education of their children. What is at stake here is not a question of social utility or stability, whether home schooling could threaten democracy. What is at stake is the justice that we owe children, that they receive an education that cultivates their future citizenship, their individual freedom, and that teaches them at least basic academic skills, skills that are necessary for ably exercising both their citizenship and their freedom.”
I wish I could be as sanguine as Rob Reich, because our democracy could clearly be at risk if millions of compromised children continue to go through this warped religious soaked system. In addition, why settle for minimum standards?
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1020/cover.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7630851222567912489#docid=5881186192356745364
God’s Next Army
Documentary about Patrick Henry College for homeschooled evangelical children.
http://www.truthout.org/article/christian-reconstructionists-trying-take-dominion-america
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={1F86E588-AA4A-43A1-998D-D9BF4FBE4D09} Michael Farris brags about denial of service attack.
About Michael Farris and sham home schools:
http://a2zhomeschool.com/homes
Purge of Professors at Patrick Henry
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/26/83129/0021
http://www.publiceye.org/christian_right/dominionism.htm
Reports on the web include:
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm#_edn14
http://www.theocracywatch.org/
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n3/clarkson_dominionism.html
http://www.theocracywatch.org/chris_hedges_nov24_04.htm
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/1/5/155457/0298
http://a2zhomeschool.com/homeschool/2009/06/16/reconstruction-theology-and-home-education/
Books
American Fascists, The Christian Right and The War on America, by Chris Hedges
Kingdom Coming, The Rise of Christian Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg
American Theocracy, The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury by Kevin Philips
http://www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=2047
Write These Laws on Your Children: Inside the World of Conservative Christian Homeschooling
Author: Robert Kunzman
Product Code: 3291 ISBN: 978-080703291-6
Copyright Date Ed: 08/01/2009
A compelling look at conservative Christian homeschooling families—and the worldview that could radically alter American political and intellectual life.
Reports on the web include:
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm#_edn14
http://www.theocracywatch.org/
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n3/clarkson_dominionism.html
http://www.theocracywatch.org/chris_hedges_nov24_04.htm
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/1/5/155457/0298
http://a2zhomeschool.com/homeschool/2009/06/16/reconstruction-theology-and-home-education/
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=6041ae7f-7214-43e3-a801-7aabcf6968c2)
Parents strongly resist anti-spanking laws
Pro-spanking advocates insist they are against spanking bans because they wish to protect the sanctity of parental discretion. Leave aside the ethics or efficacy of using violence against children as a form of discipline. The issue is that parents must not be hampered in any way as they carry out their parental duties in accordance with their personal judgment. But does their argument withstand careful scrutiny?
Few parents would expect to go into a court and defend themselves against a motor vehicle code violation issued for not complying with a child safety seat ordinance. Laws are in effect all over the country that demand children under certain height and weight specifications ride in child seats and not regular passenger seats. This is because in case of a crash, inflatable air bags can actually kill or maim a small child when they inflate. Passenger car seats are designed for adult bodies, not child bodies and can actually produce injuries to children.
The child safety seat laws are founded on scientific research that predicts what will likely happen to children who are not protected by riding in a seat especially constructed for their safe transportation. Likewise, spanking bans are founded on scientific studies of the harm that will likely happen statistically to a number of children if such bans are not in place. Anti-spanking bans are not based simply on conjecture, but derive their authority based on valid data, rigorously compiled and analyzed.
Libertarian supporters of parental rights don’t seem to object to mandatory child safety seat laws. If their concern is really about government interference in their parental decision making, shouldn’t they therefore resist buying and using expensive child safety seats? What right does the government have to insist parents protect their children from harm by putting them in a car safety seat?
Likewise, many cities and towns have vehicle codes that require children to wear safety helmets when riding on a bike or as a passenger on a motorcycle. Do parents who favor unrestricted control over their decision making, think they would survive a court challenge in case they disregard child safety helmet laws?
When you board an airplane your children must wear a seat belt or you and the child will be removed from the plane. Why do libertarians not object to this intrusion into their parental decision making.
The objection to a spanking ban fails for the same reason that the parental rights defense fails in the instances cited. Although parental rights certainly have a place in the overall scheme of how society raises future generations, child safety deserves a higher priority than noble, abstract, theoretical considerations defending unrestricted parental rights.
Related articles by Zemanta
- I Fought the Law and the Law Won: The Contest, Answered (freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com)
- Is Your Child Safe in the Car? (susanheim.blogspot.com)
- Protect Your Passengers (cdc.gov)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=1ee522f1-0a7c-4d80-a9c5-aea65d03148c)
Global progress towards banning all corporal punishment of children
- Image by HA! Designs – Artbyheather via Flickr
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/global.html
From End Corporal Punishment official web site. In the following text the hypertext links, italicized, are deactivated. Please visit the web site.
Legal reforms to prohibit all corporal punishment of children – in the family home as well as in schools and other institutions and penal systems – are spreading fast.
In many states the law provides defences for parents, other carers and teachers who use corporal punishment to discipline children: provisions which allow “reasonable chastisement” or “lawful correction”. In addition there may be education laws providing for corporal punishment in schools and laws allowing corporal punishment in penal institutions and as a sentence of the courts.
Law reform to end corporal punishment involves removing any provisions authorising corporal punishment and removing any special defences that may exist, so that the criminal law on assault applies equally to any assault of a child, whether or not it is described as discipline. It is a fundamental principle of human rights – upheld in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 7 and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 26 – that all are entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination.
In some states the law is silent on corporal punishment of children, but nevertheless it is socially and legally accepted and therefore explicit prohibition is required.
Click (active link at the web site) for the latest summary information on progress towards universal prohibition, and selected facts and figures on states pursuing reform and states so far resisting.
Click (active link at the web site) for information of legislation in states which have achieved full prohibition.
Worldwide, corporal punishment in schools has been prohibited in at least 108 states. But at least 78 states have not prohibited corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions for children in conflict with the law, and 43 have not prohibited it as a judicial sentence of the courts for young people convicted of an offence.
Our online global table shows data for all states and dependent territories on the extent of prohibition in three categories: Home; School; Penal system. Listed alphabetically, select from below
: TABLE A-D | TABLE E-H | TABLE I-L | TABLE M-P | TABLE Q-T | TABLE U-Z (active links at the web site)
Also available from the table are individual reports for each state, with details of laws relating to corporal punishment in the home, schools, penal system and alternative care settings, as well as summaries of prevalence research and extracts from recommendations made by human rights treaty bodies. Click here for individual state reports.
Our global and regional tables, available as PDF files (updated August 2009), summarise the extent of prohibition in the home, schools, as a sentence for crime, as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions, and in alternative care settings. Download from here:
[Please visit the web site for latest data]
This analysis has been compiled from information from governmental and non-governmental sources, including reports on implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every effort is made to maintain its accuracy. Please send us updating information and details of sources for missing information: info@endcorporalpunishment.org.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Sask. children’s advocate adds support to anti-spanking bill (cbc.ca)
- Spanking Hurts Kids’ IQ (abcnews.go.com)
- Corporal Punishment in U.S. Schools (time.com)
- UN agency adopted a new general comment in 2006 on corporal punishment (endhereditaryreligion.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=110cb2d3-374c-43a1-a29b-25caf9ebd1b3)
I love Canadian kids!
- Image via Wikipedia
Opposition to controversial bill voiced on Facebook
By Don Braid, Calgary HeraldJune 2, 2009Comments (4)
http://www.chtv.com/ch/chcanews/story.html?id=1654207
A Facebook group called Students Against Bill 44 had just over 100 members last week.
By Monday evening, as final debate on the human rights amendments was about to start, more than 2,000 people had joined.
Right below that group, Facebook listed another called Students FOR Bill 44.
It had fewer than 35 members.
That’s the way this debate has gone for the government; straight downhill.
It began with a casual political horsetrade within the Tory caucus. Moderate MLAs got two little ponies–enshrinement of gay rights, and retention of strictures against hate speech.
In return, the conservative side of the caucus was handed a runaway horse called parental rights.
Similar to existing provisions in the School Act, it allows parents to withdraw children from classes about religion, human sexuality, and sexual orientation.
At first the Tories brushed off discontent from teachers, gays and opposition politicians. The fuss was a useful counter to charges that the party has moved too far left.
But the initial unease quickly became a genuine uproar.
Surprising coalitions formed. There was rare ugreement among teachers, parents’ councils, the opposition, school boards and human rights groups.
Even people who at first didn’t think the impacts would be serious (including me) had to rethink the issue. Dissent as fierce at this, from people so knowledgeable, is seldom entirely wrong-headed or political.
The opponents made some excellent points about the bill opening the school system to endless complaints and legal challenges.
As if to prove the point, right-wing advocates suggested they would do exactly that.
One said the bill didn’t go nearly far enough because parents, not legislators, should decide what classes their kids should attend in the public schools.
Bill 44 probably still has the support of most voters who back the Tories. As one strategist said, how many conservative-leaning parents are going to argue against parents’ rights?
But the Tories missed a few ominous twists, including the feelings of students themselves.
As the Facebook site shows, they don’t necessarily want their parents telling them what they may learn and not learn.
In fact, they turn out to be far more interested in students’ rights than parents’ rights.
OneUof A student wrote: “This is ridiculous. What about letting children grow up into being their own people? . . . Down with this bill.”
Another said, “This is absolutely stupid. Just because you may not agree with something being taught, who are you to stop your child from forming their own opinion of it?”
Related articles by Zemanta
- Bill 44 passes in Alberta legislature (calgaryherald.com)
Why do outsiders think they have a right to impose their non-beliefs on believing parents?
- Image by clemente via Flickr
This question comes up frequently on a forum I initiated with the following question:
Why do parents believe they have the right to force religion on their children?
I guess my standard answer has not sufficed, so I’ll try harder. First my standard answer:
Beliefs are not easily imposed on adults.
I’ll elaborate. A belief is a concept or idea that is held without evidence, without facts. Hense, religious people make a virtue of beliefs. A belief is synonymous with an opinion. As long as adults are just exchanging opinions, not much is going to change. Opinions have no force, no weight, they lack the ability to sway people’s minds. If a person thinks their belief will not withstand challenge, isn’t that an important clue that the belief actually needs to be challenged? Where is it written in the constitution that citizens cannot challenge each other. I’ve never seen this anywhere and in fact the foundation of our democracy was healthy debate. Our founders engaged in the most raucous rambunctious debate you can imagine.
I think the point you may be reaching for is why should atheists challenge parents over the way they raise their children. My rejoinder is why shouldn’t we if we think it is wrong? If your family lives on an isolated island and you are the only family, then what you do to your children only effects you and the children. You don’t live on an isolated island, do you? We may regret what is happening to such an isolated family’s children, but it doesn’t really effect us.
Whatever gives you the idea that others in your community are “outsiders”, as you put it. This “us – them” attitude is fostered by religious groups as a way to solidify support and loyalty. But, it divides us and sets one group against another. Yet another valid reason to challenge believers, so far as I can see.
We humans are social animals and we all depend upon each other unless we are hermits. Don’t we look askance at hermits? Are they not considered anti-social, strange, even threatening?
When I encounter parents here who are really defensive, and many take this to the point of belligerence, it tells me I am listening to someone who is not so confident in what they are doing or they would not overreact. People who are secure in their convictions do not react defensively when challenged because they have carefully thought about their world view and can usually present it calmly and clearly.
People know I am an atheist, I make no secret of this. However, the fact that I am an atheist is immaterial to the question. There are theists who understand and appreciate the ethical question involved. Accordingly, they also oppose indoctrination of vulnerable children. Which, opposition I think, is actually your concern. Am I understanding you? Likewise, many theists support the separation of church and state. It is really not a question of believer versus non-believer.
If parents are raising their children in their faith so that the faith can continue, then they are using their children as instruments and we in the West decided long ago that it is unethical for a person to use another person to satisfy their own desires. It would be like raising a child specifically to be a field hand on your farm or to be a soldier to protect your country’s borders. Hitler was reviled for developing an extensive government program that subsidized German women to be baby factories so he could have soldiers for his army.
A final thought. Can you appreciate the fact that everyone can be thought of as an “outsider” to someone else. We have to get past this kind of divisive thinking if we are going to build healthy happy communities.
Related articles by Zemanta
- An insightful personal narrative of an apostate (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- Liars for Jesus (endhereditaryreligion.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=09b4fb7d-80fa-4a1d-a682-abff1501456b)
Why people believe in evolution, *not*
- Image via Wikipedia
Do you want to know why people believe in evolution? Read evolution denying Christian, Wayne Jackson. Here we have in one concise document all the contorted rationalizations you could possibly imagine for *not* believing in evolution.
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/567-why-people-believe-in-evolution
Wayne Jackson, is an expert propagandist. What he churns out are classic pieces built around the strategy of “turnspeak”. Turnspeak is a technique of deliberately confusing issues by turning the truth upside down. Jackson attacks Darwinians, but then the claim is weirdly made that the Darwinians are actually the attackers. Black becomes white and white becomes black. Joseph Goebbels, the NAZI propaganda genius is credited with inventing the technique. A variation of turnspeak is the use of disingenuous descriptions that seem to conflate opposing positions into advocacy. It’s easier to persuade others to agree with an argument for something rather than against something. For example “pro marriage” and “protection of marriage” really mean anti-same-sex marriage. Pro life really means anti-abortion. Paranoid propagandists like Jackson seek to create their own version of reality so they can ward off the unwelcome truth of actual reality. Jackson’s Christian Courier web site is a monument to his delirium.
A facebook member, Prince St. Cyr follows the Christian zealots and is an expert in analyzing propaganda of practitioners like Wayne Jackson that are part of the assault on reason. St Cyr informs us:
“One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows. It produces heroic strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed. … Respectable paranoid literature not only starts from certain moral commitments that can indeed be justified but also carefully and all-but-obsessively accumulates “evidence.” The difference between this “evidence” and that commonly employed by others is that it seems less a means of entering into normal political controversy than a means of warding off the profane intrusion of the secular political world. The paranoid seems to have little expectation of actually convincing a hostile world, but he can accumulate evidence in order to protect his cherished convictions from it.”
Why should anyone care about Wayne Jackson and his writing? Isn’t he too far off the wall? Jackson matters because he has so many followers and they represent a dangerous segment of our population. The enemies of reason, which is what we are talking about here, are passionate about spreading their propaganda and they enjoy political power and have money funneled to them by wealthy patrons. They represent a malignancy in our collective body politic and they have succeeded in making ignorance fashionable and desirable. Recall Joe the plumber? Sarah Palin’s preposterous candidacy for vice president revealed exactly how virulent the malignancy grew in the waning days of the Bush administration. We may have gone into remission, but the cancer is still there. Just tune to the Fox network or the many Christian zealots on radio and television.
We should care because as Charles Darwin said: “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” We care because the lies and half truths of Jackson’s propaganda are easily believed by people who have been systematically turned away from rationality and reason. They have been methodically robbed of the training they need to see through the lies. Worse yet, they can be influenced to vote and to support the systematic assault on reason. They disrupt public meetings, and divert public money into court battles such as the Dover case and the countless challenges that arise around Christian holidays that involve Christians openly challenging the separation of church and state.
In Texas, the State Board of Education is chaired by a radical literalist Christian who constantly seeks to introduce his flavor of religion into the science curriculum and now into the social studies curriculum.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123777413372910705.html”
The Texas Board of Education will vote this week on a new science curriculum designed to challenge the guiding principle of evolution, a step that could influence what is taught in biology classes across the nation.
The proposed curriculum change would prompt teachers to raise doubts that all life on Earth is descended from common ancestry. Texas is such a huge textbook market that many publishers write to the state’s standards, then market those books nationwide.
“This is the most specific assault I’ve seen against evolution and modern science,” said Steven Newton, a project director at the National Center for Science Education, which promotes teaching of evolution.
Christians are angered or distressed when anyone states the obvious: that they are deluded. But as a final example of turnspeak, here is Wayne Jackson concluding his article:
“People do not believe in evolution because they have been led there by solid evidence. They are stampeded into the Darwinian community by superficial, emotional, and personal factors. They only delude themselves when they think otherwise.” A golden nugget of turnspeak.
Translation:
People believe evolution because it is based on solid evidence. They cannot be stampeded into the Darwinian community by superficial emotion and personal factors in the manner that Christians are stampeded into Christianity. Darwinians do not delude themselves like Christians delude themselves.
According to Gallup only about 12% of Americans accept the scientific arguments and mounds of data as proof that natural forces are sufficient to explain evolution. No supernatural intervention is required. The widespread acceptance that a supernatural force has to be behind evolution can only be regarded as a national disgrace because it exemplifies how willing people are to embrace the wild rationalizations of propagandists like Wayne Jackson. Charles Darwin gave humanity one of the most elegant and brilliant intellectual achievements ever created by a human and his theory is routinely and stupidly dragged through the mud and mire of Christian and Muslim propaganda.
American understanding of science and the scientific method is woefully lacking and the proximate cause is a deliberate program of propaganda directed towards intellectuals, the public schools, and in particular the appreciation of science and reason. The propaganda merchants are literalistic evangelicals that clearly understand the relationship between education level attained and the acceptance of fanciful supernatural beliefs. The more education you have, the less apt you are to accept dogma and superstition as guides to living. The problem is that people opposed to education and rationality indoctrinate their hapless children with their backward outlook and beliefs. You do not see such ignorance in Japan, Canada, or the secular democracies of the world. Unfortunately, the Muslims are just as adamantly opposed to evolution as our hillbilly theologists.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Texas board comes down on 2 sides of creationism debate (cnn.com)
- Science and faith: the conflict (telegraph.co.uk)
UN Secretary General’s Report on Violence Against Children
Appendix: The 12 Overarching Study Recommendations
- Strengthen national and local commitment and action: This refers to establishing a national focal point on violence against children by the end of 2007, to coordinate actions, and especially to ensure that actions to stop violence against children are integrated into national planning processes by 2009.
- Prohibit all violence against children: This refers to legal reforms including implementation of laws to stop all forms of violence against children, in all settings, including all corporal punishment, harmful traditional practices, such as early and forced marriages, female genital mutilation and so-called honour crimes, sexual violence, and torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as required by international treaties.
- Prioritize prevention: This refers to preventing all forms of violence against children in all settings by addressing underlying causes, as well as more immediate risk and protective factors.
- Promote non-violent values and awareness-raising: This refers to transforming attitudes that condone or normalize violence against children including via public information campaigns which promote non-violent values and protect children in all media coverage.
- Enhance the capacity of all who work with and for children: This refers to developing the capacity of all those who work with and for children to improve prevention, detection and responses.
- Provide recovery and social reintegration services: This refers providing accessible, child-sensitive and universal health and social services, including legal assistance to children and, where appropriate, their families.
- Ensure participation of children: This refers to States and their partners actively engaging with children and respecting their views.
- Create accessible and child-friendly reporting systems and services: This refers to establishing safe, well publicized, confidential and accessible mechanisms for children, their representatives and others to report violence against children.
- Ensure accountability and end impunity: This refers to building community confidence in the justice system by bringing all perpetrators of violence against children to justice.
- Address the gender dimension of violence against children: This refers to the integral role of gender biases in violence against children, and that States should promote and protect the rights of women and girls and address all forms of gender-based discrimination as part of a comprehensive violence-prevention strategy.
- Develop and implement systematic national data collection and research: This refers to the urgent need to improve data collection and information systems by 2009, in the context of a national research agenda and agreed international indicators, and with particular reference to vulnerable subgroups.
- Strengthen international commitment: This refers to States ratifying international treaties and implementing international standards agreed to.
www.rightsofchildren.ca/pdf/S-207.pdf
Comment on blogs supporting Hoekstra’s amendment
- Image by kjd via Flickr
http://childrightscampaign.org/crcindex.php?sNav=getinformed_snav.php&sDat=faqs_dat.php
CRC FAQs- Myths and Facts
Over 300 organizations representing the interests of the religious, education, health care, humanitarian, labor, legal, and social service communities have lent their support for ratification of the CRC. However, a small number of political organizations (seems to be mainly Parentalrights.org) have spearheaded efforts to oppose U.S. ratification. These groups have sought to minimize the Convention’s value by employing “scare tactics” to fallaciously portray the CRC as a threat to American families. In general, opponents largely base their arguments on unsubstantiated claims regarding national sovereignty and interference in the parent-child relationship.
They allege that ratification of the CRC:
These false claims are the result of misconceptions, erroneous information, and a lack of understanding about how international human rights treaties are implemented in the United States. In many cases, the Convention’s opponents criticize provisions which were added by the Reagan Administration during the drafting process in an effort to reflect the rights U.S. citizens have under our Constitution.
Myth #1: The Convention would become “Supreme Law” of the land.
Truth: As ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court, under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, no treaty can override the Constitution [(Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)]. In addition, the CRC is not a “self-executing treaty” – it cannot be automatically implemented without legislative action. As with any treaty, each U.S. state would be responsible for developing and executing its own legislation.
Truth: The U.S. can ratify the CRC with reservations, understandings and declarations (RUDs). RUDs address specific conflicts between the U.S. Constitution and a particular Convention. Reservations modify a treaty’s provisions (e.g. if a provision of the CRC is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. can file a “reservation” to the provision so that the provision does not apply). Understandings and Declarations help to clarify how the U.S. believes a particular provision should be interpreted. RUDs do not legally exempt the U.S. from adhering to a provision.
Truth: The Convention contains no language or directives with regard to how it should be implemented. Each country is responsible for determining how to implement this. Moreover, as stated in the text of the Convention, any State that is a party to the CRC can nullify its ratification by providing written notification of “denunciation” to the UN General Secretary.
Truth: The CRC does not grant the UN and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (the international body that monitors the CRC) enforcement authority over the U.S. and its citizens. Ultimately, the Convention obligates the U.S. federal government to submit periodic reports to ensure that the provisions of the treaty are being met. As a party to both the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography and the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, the U.S. is already required to submit periodic reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child outlining implementation and monitoring efforts.
Myth #2: The CRC undermines the primacy of the parent-child relationship.
Truth: The CRC recognizes the family “as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children…”, and acknowledges “that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love, and understanding.” (Preamble to the CRC)
Truth: The Convention repeatedly underscores the pivotal role parents play in their children’s lives. There is ample language throughout the Convention to support this, particularly with regard to Articles 3, 5, 7-10, 14, 18, 22, and 27.
Myth #3: Ratification would allow the UN to dictate how parents should raise their children.
Truth: The CRC does not, by any means, grant the UN authority to control, govern, or police U.S. policies for children.
Truth: Under the Convention, parental responsibility is protected from government interference. Article 5 states that Governments should respect the rights, responsibilities, and duties of parents to raise their children.
Truth: There is no language in the CRC that dictates the manner in which parents are to raise and instruct their children. Ratification of the Convention would not prevent parents from homeschooling their children.
Myth #4: The CRC embraces the view that children are autonomous agents who are capable, in all areas, of making adult decisions and dealing with adult situations.
Truth: The Convention does not extend to children all of the same rights accorded to adults, such as the right to vote and unrestricted freedom to make independent decisions.
Truth: The framers of the CRC understood that children’s ability to exercise certain rights is dependent upon their age and maturity and influenced by their culture, environment, and life experiences. The Convention encourages parents to deal with rights issues with their children “…in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.” (Articles 5 and 14)
Myth #5: The Convention gives children the right to sue their parents.
Truth: The CRC does not give children the “right” to sue their parents. Any legal action brought by children against their parents must be based on existing federal or state laws, not on provisions contained in the CRC. Currently, children in the U.S. (through a legally-appointed guardian) are allowed to bring legal action against their parents only for injuries sustained from physical abuse or gross neglect.
Truth: Provisions in the CRC regarding a child’s right to legal assistance pertain only to children who have been accused of committing a crime and subsequently arrested, detained, or imprisoned for such violation of the law. (Articles 37 and 40)
Myth #6: Ratification will encourage children to have abortions.
Truth: The CRC maintains no explicit position on family planning and abortion issues and does not define when childhood begins. Ratifying countries remain responsible for forming public policy on these issues through their own national legislative and judicial processes. The Holy See (Vatican) was one of the first parties to ratify the CRC. Moreover, countries that have strict anti-abortion laws, such as Ireland and the Philippines, have ratified the Convention.
Truth: The Committee on the Rights of the Child, in responding to State parties’ reports, has repeatedly called attention to the important roles parents play in their children’s lives, voicing its concern for the high rates of adolescent pregnancy and abortion found in certain countries.
Truth: Article 6 of the CRC provides for a child’s right to privacy. Opponents contend that this right would allow children to have abortions without securing parental consent. However, this provision was included in the Convention to protect children from governmental abuses. In addition, Articles 5 and 14 reflect the Convention’s respect for parental guidance and responsibility in raising their children and helping them to learn how to exercise their rights in an appropriate manner.
Myth #7: The CRC allows children to participate in any religion of their choosing.
Truth: The Convention grants children the right to practice their religion free from government interference. The CRC supports the right of children to examine and ask questions about their beliefs, but also specifically recognizes the rights and responsibilities of parents to guide their children in these matters. The Holy See and many countries with strong religious traditions have ratified the CRC.
Myth #8: Ratification will allow children to join gangs and racist organizations. Parents will not be able to oversee children’s interactions with others.
Truth: The CRC does not give children the right to join gangs, cults, or racist organizations, but the right to peacefully assemble. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution already guarantees this right.
Truth: The Convention does not usurp parents’ authority to prevent their children from associating with persons of “dubious” character, such as pedophiles, gang members, etc. Parents are responsible for ensuring their children do not associate with people who do not have the best interests of their children in mind.
Myth #9: The Convention provides children with an “unrestricted” right to access any information they want, including pornography.
Truth: There is no language in the Convention that gives children the right to “unlimited” freedom of information, including access to pornography and other obscene materials. Current U.S. laws protect children from exposure to inappropriate materials, such as the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000 and the Telecommunication’s Act of 1996.
Truth: Ratification of the CRC would not prevent parents from activating televisions’ “V-chips” or installing Internet firewalls and other content filtering programs that protect children from viewing inappropriate material. Parents would not be precluded from restricting their children’s access to violent video games, music with obscene lyrics, etc.
For a complete and rational analysis of the issues surrounding this convention please go to this Harvard Law school web site.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fnB158
Suggested action:
This is a perfect teaching moment. For those who have time and wish to be involved here is a suggestion. Go to www.alerts.google.com and make a news alert.
http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en&gl=
Use key words like ParentalRights or Hoekstra and Constitutional amendment
You will doubtless get many hits every day. Go to the blog or website and post the suggested comment. Or, make one you like. There are probably tens of thousands of Christian homeschoolers that are publishing verbatim whatever they get from the HSLDA or ParentalRights.org web sites.
We probably should create a web site or facebook group to combat the propaganda of the dominionists. Didn’t know Michael Ferris was a dominionist fascist? Take some time to read the articles on talk2action, Americans United, or People for the American Way.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Is the Constitution Too Hard to Amend? (themoderatevoice.com)
Parental rights amendment – Act II
- Image via Wikipedia
The parental rights amendment is going to be re-introduced by Representative Hoekstra:
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={48D114CD-BD70-4776-A32A-5661013D8897}
This time he has rounded up 60 co-sponsors. Write to the sponsors and let them know we don’t want them messing with our constitution.
My message to the sponsors:
The idea that parents lack rights in the United States is risible. Many state laws have purposely been written to allow parents to deny their children educational benefits they are entitled to. Some children actually suffer and die because of their parent’s superstitious religious beliefs.
Our constitution does not need amending. If anything, we should consider passing laws that make parenting education and testing mandatory. Perhaps we even need to go so far as issuing licenses to couples who want to procreate.
You cannot even give a child a haircut in this country without passing an examination that certifies you are qualified to cut hair. Likewise, teachers, child care center workers and anyone providing services to children must undergo education and prove they are qualified. For some jobs, a criminal background check is required.
What does it take to legally create a new life? Nothing. How are couples qualified to be parents? There is no way to know because they are not required to actually know anything about parenting or be tested. Sweden has had comprehensive parenting education in place for decades. The only people who object to it do so because they are zealots and they claim the bible has all the child rearing guidance they need.
Why should we as a society tolerate incompetent faith based parenting? We could fashion public policies that would save hundreds of little lives and millions of cases of neglect and abuse each year. All that stops us is the political motivation and a sick infatuation with individualism.
Oakland Politics:: US Congressman Pete Hoekstra and Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum Discuss Parental Rights
US Congressman Pete Hoekstra and Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum Discuss Parental Rights
by: laryholland
Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 19:41:00 PM EDT
(Want your event or release here? Create an account and contact me. – promoted by chetly)
US Congressman Pete Hoekstra and Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum Discuss Parental Rights on Get Your Justice Live
Congressman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) discusses his upcoming reintroduction of the former Parental Rights Amendment from 2008 into the 111th Congress. The Congressman confirmed that efforts from citizens are working with an increase from 24 co-sponsors to 54 co-sponsors to the proposed Parental Rights Amendment. Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, will be on an upcoming episode. We were also joined by Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Form. Congressman Hoekstra stated very clearly that “I don’t want anybody coming between the parents and the kids, and creating a barrier.”
The language is simple: “The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.“ The Congressman demonstrated clear examples of where parents make a better caregiver than the government. Congressman Hoekstra further said that one of the causes of the erosion of our parental rights is government growth, “Men of zeal who lack understanding,” people that basically mean well but who lack understanding. It is imperative that we protect our parental rights from both domestic and international government intrusions, but that means discussing our concerns consistently with our government officials.
To listen to interview in its entirety, visit the linked title.
US Congressman Pete Hoekstra and Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum Discuss Parental Rights on Get Your Justice Live
laryholland :: US Congressman Pete Hoekstra and Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum Discuss Parental Rights
Older Posts »
