Parental rights are not inalienable

- Image via Wikipedia
Here in the USA there is far too much attention given to the doctrine of parental rights and children are suffering for this. Our family laws granting parents so much power rest solely on patriarchal custom, not on ethics and not on an inalienable right. It doesn’t hurt that our judges are just as infatuated with the supernatural as the most uneducated people in the land.
Family law Professor James Dwyer presents the arguments against our current doctrine of parent’s rights in a seminal paper and in his books. Briefly, we do not grant rights to one group of people over the lives of another group of people except in this very unique case of parents and their children. The reason such rights are not granted is that according to our legal theory rights can only apply to an individual and must be self determining not other determining. Rights have a very technical meaning in the law, but people bandy the term around as though they actually know what they are talking about.
We especially should not grant such rights to a group of people who have questionable self serving motives, such as insuring the survival of a religion and using their children as instruments in such a scheme. This is why the Yoder decision will one day be reversed. If we can ever clear out the people like Thomas and Scalia and put the court on a progressive track.
Inalianable: Natural rights (or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. In contrast, legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights) are rights conveyed by a particular legal or political entity, rights as enshrined in law, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.
Inalienable rights are usually enshrined in human rights declarations. I don’t find anything about parental rights being inalienable in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Obviously, Michael Ferris of HSLDA agrees that our parental rights doctrine is on shaky ground or why would his organization ParentalRights.org be clamoring to amend the US constitution to “protect” parental rights. Which like I say do not exist in the sense of natural rights. What he and his devious attorneys attempt to persuade people with are quotes from legal arguments they take out of context from various court decisions. People who are not constitutional lawyers buy his line. Then, convinced the evil state is trying to rob them of their rights, they get all up in arms and send him money, which is the whole point. He stands as much chance of amending the constitution as I do.
The Swedes, some of the planets most bold social engineers, have created many far reaching laws concerning parent/child relationships. Libertarians, may all swoon now, but the Swedes seem to be doing pretty well as a society. You should know that by now.
Here is some news about how Swedes are going about amending their laws on sex ed.
http://www.thelocal.se/10298/20080306
Related articles
- Children as property of parents (endhereditaryreligion.com)
Freedom of conscience is the root of all our freedoms

- Image via Wikipedia
Freedom of conscience is the root of all our freedoms because no one can be a self directing individual free of parents, governments or religious institutions without this bedrock principle. The men most responsible for the bill of rights, Jefferson and Madison, had a clear notion that freedom of conscience was the principle they were protecting in the first amendment. Madison wrote: that religion “must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate”.
Accordingly, secular parents do not steer their children towards atheism, if they are wise. Instead the idea must be to explain the religious “menu” so that when they mature, children can place an order intelligently. This is the essence of the Humanist ethos. People of limited imagination believe that everyone shares their way of looking at the world and cannot put themselves in a humanist’s shoes. Theists think they are commanded by their holy books to dominate and control their children. I suppose they just cannot fathom the notion that children are persons in their own right with their own life to direct as they see fit. Or, that the prevailing ethos among atheists and Humanists is to NOT dominate their children but to help them learn how to make decisions for themselves based on rational thinking and self reflection.
Children did not ask to be born and they are under no obligation to fulfill some master plan of their parents and especially some master plan of a religious institution. Teaching a child to think for themselves is the best insurance a child could have against being duped into a cult or other controlling group of people. To succeed, the insidious indoctrination process must diminish the ability to reason. Instead of how to think for themselves, children are taught dogmatism and to distrust their own ability to think.
There are clearly different outcomes for children raised to enjoy intellectual autonomy (personal independence) and those burdened with intellectual heteronomy (the condition of being under the domination of an outside authority, either human or divine). In many churches, homes, and faith schools, children are taught intellectual heteronomy. I quote from Donald Capps’ book, “The Children’s Song, The Religious Abuse of Children”:
“What is at stake here is the freedom of children to think for themselves and to feel secure in the knowledge that adults will not hold their expressions of intellectual autonomy against them. Especially where biblical literalism is taught and practiced, and where punitive attitudes towards sinners are voiced and countenanced, children are unlikely to experience such freedom to think and reason for themselves. Rather, they are likely to feel that it is wrong for them to think for themselves and that, if they do, they are likely to incur the disapproval, if not the wrath, of precisely those adults who have power over them. Fearing the negative consequences of their exercise of intellectual autonomy, they are likely to overreact, to place even greater strictures on their own freedom of thought than these adults may have required of them.” (p. 59)
Parents who promote intellectual heteronomy likely grew up in such a stifling environment themselves and simply cannot imagine any other way of thinking or being. This is a key argument for ending childhood indoctrination. The chain must be severed once and for all. Every parent who contemplates imposing their religion on their children should study Donald Capps’ book before they do that.
Both Madison and Jefferson were strongly against any establishment of a state religion, although the practice was widespread in the original colonies. Today the most dangerous threat to our free and open society is coming from theocrats that sincerely want to sweep away the constitution and institute biblical laws. Seriously, and they managed to get G. W. Bush elected twice. Ok, I am drifting off topic.
Today, the institutions and parents do every thing they can to thwart the ability of children to grow up with a mind that is untainted by a particular flavor of faith. Parents are swayed by clerics, family members and co-religionists. However, freedom of conscience is an inalienable right which “people cannot possibly relinquish to civil government”. — Madison (or if you follow the logic to parents or priests).
Yet parents and clerics step all over this right for the simple reason that they are in a position to do so and they claim children are too young to exercise such a right. Well they are too young, but who says children need to choose at the ripe old age of three, or four?
Why on earth is religion different? Because it is religion, that’s why and a majority of religious people and the clerics want it that way because they know it will get harder to impress their wild improbable dogma on an adult mind. For all the noble justifications offered, there is little doubt that the institutions are in this indoctrination game to save their institutions. Which makes children simply instruments of their plan. In any other sphere of human activity, using others as instruments is an abhorrent practice. Not where religion is concerned.
The incredible fact is we reserve a special measure of loathing and disgust for people who mistreat small helpless animals or helpless people. Why? Precisely because they are vulnerable and helpless.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Children afraid to tell their parents (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- Losing Our Religion (outsidethebeltway.com)
Parental rights are not inalienable

- Image via Wikipedia
Here in the USA there is far too much preference given to the doctrine of parental rights and children are suffering for this. Our family laws granting parents so much power rest solely on patriarchal custom, not on ethics and not on an inalienable right. It doesn’t help that our judges are just as infatuated with the supernatural as the most uneducated people in the land. There is no balance now on the Supreme Court.
Professor James G. Dwyer presents the arguments against our current doctrine of parent’s rights in a seminal paper and in his books. Briefly, we do not grant rights to one group of people to control the lives of another group of people except in this very unique case of parents and their children. The reason such rights are not granted is that according to our legal theory rights can only apply to an individual and must be self determining not other determining. Rights have a very technical meaning in the law, but people bandy the term around as though they actually know what they are talking about.
We especially should not grant such rights to a group of people who have questionable self serving motives, such as insuring the survival of a religion and using their children as instruments in such a scheme. This is why the Yoder decision will one day be reversed. If we can ever bring ourselves to impeach the conservative reactionaries Thomas and Scalia and put the court on a progressive track.
Inalianable: Natural rights (or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. In contrast, legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights) are rights conveyed by a particular legal or political entity, rights as enshrined in law, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.
Inalienable rights are usually enshrined in human rights declarations. I don’t find anything about parental rights being inalienable in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Obviously, Michael Ferris of HSLDA agrees that our parental rights doctrine is on shaky ground or why would his organization ParentalRights.org be clamoring to amend the US constitution to “protect” parental rights. Which like I say do not exist in the sense of natural rights. What he and his devious attorneys attempt to persuade people with is quotes from legal arguments they take out of context from various court decisions. People who are not constitutional lawyers buy his line. Then convinced the evil state is trying to rob them of their rights, they get all up in arms and send him money, which is the whole point. He stands as much chance of amending the constitution as I do.
The Swedes, some of the planets most bold social engineers, have created many laws far reaching laws concerning parent/child relationships. Libertarians, may all swoon now, but the Swedes seem to be doing pretty well as a society. You should know that by now.
Here is some news about how Swedes are going about amending their laws on sex ed.
http://www.thelocal.se/10298/20080306






