Speak Up When Pro-Child Politics Are Attacked as Anti-Parent

12 11 2009

Here we go again. Families, child-rearing and home education publicly
stereotyped as conservative extremism and anti-human rights, sigh. If
you parent and/or educate children and don’t fit this stereotype, make
your voice heard too. Don’t let this define your principles.


Parental rights rally on Washington planned: Your stories needed!

November 11, 11:01 AM
by Lynda Ackert

The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the General
Assembly of the United Nations on the 20th of November 1989. As part of a celebration, internationalists backing this UN Convention have
declared November 20th of this year as ‘Children’s Day.’

In response, ParentalRights dot org will rally in Washington, D.C. on that day. The rally will be held at the U.S. Capitol from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., on the East Lawn across from the Rayburn House Office building.

Speakers during the rally will include Rep. Peter Hoekstra and Sen. Jim
DeMint, the lead sponsors of the Parental Rights Amendment; Gerard
Robinson with Black Alliance for Educational Options; William Estrada of
Homeschool Legal Defense Association; Dean and Julie Nelson of National Black Home Educators; and Steven Groves of Heritage Foundation.

Whether you homeschool or not, parental rights have been and are
continuing to be under attack.

Want your voice heard? ParentalRights.org wants to hear from you. If you have experienced any assault or threat to your parental rights, make your story known by emailing ParentalRights. . .

Homeschooling is a parental right…Let’s keep it that way!

Source: ParentalRights dot org

For more of JJ’s thoughts on the UN and this political meme setting up “parental rights” in opposition to child and human rights, start with:

Homeschool freedom fighting: It’s so not about the UN

Parental Rights and responsibilities: Parenting sex and parenthood

Latest Homeschool Freak-out from World Net Daily


Actions

Information

43 responses

12 11 2009
COD

I think we know who is dominating the ranks of the unemployed – it’s conservatives. They seem to have an awful lot of free time for weekday rallies in DC.

12 11 2009
JJ

Except they’re really all employees of Dick Armey-connected Big Business corps, bused in for the occasion. So in a way, they are on the job just like you are? [tongue sticking out icon]

12 11 2009
Nance Confer

I was just thinking that, COD. Who has the time and money to go to these things? For nothing, really. They accomplish nothing. They just look like fools on TV. All this emotion and time and energy and money. Who are these people?

Nance

12 11 2009
Crimson Wife

The UNCRC is filled with all sorts of nice-sounding but overly vague language.

Who wouldn’t be in favor of, say, article 6? “Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life. Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent the survival and the development of the child.”

As somebody who is pro-Life I absolutely support the above. BUT under the UN, an unborn baby has no right to life. The UNCRC would grant teen girls the unrestricted right to abortion on demand under article 24 (under the euphemism “family planning services”). That is abhorrent to me.

I live on the opposite coast so no marches on the U.S. Capitol for me. But I would consider going if I lived within a reasonable driving distance of D.C.

12 11 2009
JJ Ross

So you will stop feeding the homeless to get even, I suppose?

Catholic Church Threatens

12 11 2009
JJ Ross

Chris, I love your interactive graph of exactly who is unemployed! Categories I never even thought of —

12 11 2009
Lynn

http://tiny.cc/Ys9s1 at childrightscampaign.org

Myth #6: Ratification will encourage children to have abortions.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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

12 11 2009
JJ

Thanks Lynn, bookmarking that site even as we speak . . .

13 11 2009
Crimson Wife

If one goes back to the original Washington Post article rather than the Huffington Post version, one would see the real issue. If the Diocese maintains its social services contracts with the District, then it would be forced to provide benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of its employees in direct violation of Church teaching.

The simple solution would be for the District to simply offer an exemption to the ordinance for religious organizations. D.C. is the one being unreasonable in this situation. If the Diocese is forced to choose between following a civil ordinance and following Church doctrine, then of course it’s going to have to choose the higher authority. And if the vulnerable are the ones to lose out on needed services, the fault lies with the District.

13 11 2009
Nance Confer

Another simple solution would be for the Diocese to stop taking the money if it doesn’t want to play by the law.

Nance

13 11 2009
Lynn

Nance:

Another simple solution would be for the Diocese to stop taking the money if it doesn’t want to play by the law.

I agree. It’s time that the Catholic Church stop feeding from the public trough – especially when they do so while pompously insisting that they have the right to impose their abhorrent beliefs on others. Shame on them.

It’s just one more reason to vote against the motion.

Has anyone watched this recent – and encouraging – debate about the Catholic Church as a “force for good”?

The motion was: The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world. Speaking for the motion, Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Anne Widdecombe MP; speaking against the motion, Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry.

Before the debate?
For: 678
Against: 1102
Undecided: 346

After the debate?
For: 268
Against: 1876
Undecided: 0

The entire 5-part debate playlist:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F821DBF3CE3374A3
or
http://tiny.cc/KZs7E

13 11 2009
Crimson Wife

Nance & Lynn- the Diocese is going to have to cancel its contracts with the D.C. unless an exemption is granted. And that’s why the HuffPo and J.J. are criticizing it for allegedly refusing to feed the homeless. The Church doesn’t want to stop providing the services- they’re being forced into it by the unreasonableness of the District. Why is the district putting the agenda of homosexual activists ahead of the needs of its vulnerable citizens?

13 11 2009
Nance Confer

So you are suggesting the Catholic Church could not afford to continue feeding the homeless? Ha!

Nance

13 11 2009
Nance Confer

How about this? The Diocese can feed the non-gay homeless and the rest can fend for themselves.

Nance

13 11 2009
Nance Confer

Out of their own pocket. Then the church wouldn’t need to sully its hands with tax dollars that may have a touch of gay.

Nance

13 11 2009
Lynn

But, CW, where do we apply for our exemptions?

I can’t cancel my contract with the IRS. The Government takes our hard-earned income and hands it over to State-sponsored, Big Religion (the Catholic Church, in this case) – to fund discrimination campaigns against fellow citizen-taxpayers – all claimed in the name of the Common Good. I know that, historically, the Church has always been on the receiving end of Big Government Wealth Redistribution policies, but it’s time that stopped.

There are two distinct classes of men…those who pay taxes and those who receive and live upon taxes.”
— Thomas Paine

It’s also regrettable to see The Church cry “victim” over this matter. Everybody is a victim these days. As Nance points out, if Church leaders were *truly* commited to the helping the poor, they’d put on their big-boy pants and find ways to continue their work. American Religion should do for itself, rather than rely on Government handouts. As a bonus, I’d guess that many lay Catholics would love to start seeing their money go to something other than court settlements. So, the change would benefit all: gay human beings, taxpayers, the Free Market, the ethic of self-sufficiency, lay Catholics – and even the RCC…

😉

13 11 2009
JJ Ross

Coincidentally, at Killing the Buddha there’s a new essay on the Prodigal Son story, how being all about blame and punishment, victims and forcing people to be good or else, even focusing mainly on what is stern and just, or “fair” — as opposed to what is loving and uplifting — is what the parable cautions against. This is where I can appreciate the power of story in it as a humanist intellectual, and why Ayn Rand libertarian Christians strike me as utterly oxymoronic:

But what of justice? The difficulty of accepting an economy of mercy is echoed in the parable of the vineyard, which recounts the incident of a landlord who pays the same wages to workers who have worked all day as to those who have worked only an hour. When the workers complain, they are greeted with the question “Are you envious because I am generous?”

It is an impossible question, calling for an impossible honesty, one that makes self-love nearly impossible. The answer: yes. I am envious because you are generous. I am envious because my work has not been rewarded. I am envious because someone got away with something. Envy has eaten out my heart.

It is to me one of the most ethically complex, therefore greatest questions ever presented. A question with no answer. A circle without a break. Except the break of mercy, the break of grace.

But why, then, should we strive, why should we give our best, our all? Does this kind of striving only lead to envy?

The radical challenge of Jesus: perhaps everything we think in order to know ourselves as comfortable citizens of a predictable world is wrong.

And then how do we live?

In celebration.

Without envy.

Generously.

And justice? What is to become of that?

Excerpted from Reading Jesus by Mary Gordon. Copyright © 2009 by Mary Gordon.

Good interview with her here btw, about “the gospel of contradiction” and how this stuff isn’t simple, and fundamentalists are wrong to say it is.

Finally, remind me to tell you about the NPR story on hospital costs at Sacred Heart, that I heard this afternoon in the car having my own problems. The exec was explaining that the MRI doesn’t really cost $900 to give but they have to maintain all the equip 24/7 whether anyone is using it or not, and lots of people come in needing one but cannot pay. He called it “uncompensated care” and said it was part of his MBA program, actually, covering it and still being profitable. He was quite practical about the whole thing, that the hospital bills whatever it wants as a big lump to the insurance companies because none of the numbers are real, anyway, as in $10 for an aspirin etc.

Then the reporters went down the road to a freestanding imaging clinic run by a man-wife for profit. The MRI there costs half as much and it’s a more advanced machine. BUT they are not giving anything away and helping to support and care for the community as part of their mission.

Not simple stuff. Especially for truly moral folk.

13 11 2009
Crimson Wife

The Church will continue to help as many people as it can based on its own revenues. I’m pretty sure recipients are not asked about their sexual preferences before given a meal. I know our local branch of Catholic Charities has an AIDS ministry, and presumably many of those clients are homosexual given the San Francisco location.

The controversy isn’t about discrimination in providing services to the needy. It’s whether the District should force the Church to choose between providing benefits to homosexual domestic partners of employees in direct violation of Church teaching and helping a greater number of people. Sadly, it looks like the poor are going to be the ones losing out because of the unreasonableness of D.C. in not providing a religious exemption to the proposed ordinance.

13 11 2009
Crimson Wife

Can’t speak for any other (semi-) libertarian Christians, but I’m personally not a fan of Ms. Rand. Way too pro-selfishness and hostile to religion for my tastes…

13 11 2009
Nance Confer

It’s whether the District should force the Church to choose between providing benefits to homosexual domestic partners of employees in direct violation of Church teaching and helping a greater number of people.

**********

So it’s all about choice.

Only this time the choice is about how the Church gets its money.

Do they want my money? They have to do it my way. Provide benefits for all employees — gay, black, female or cross-eyed. All.

Don’t like my way. Take the other choice. Do not take my money. Use your own money to do what you do. Try to remember what non-profit means.

That’s the choice. The Church’s principles seem to be in conflict — only because they are taking money from the District. Remove that temptation. Go your merry way.

Maybe believers would think better of a Church that stands on principle. Who knows?

Nance

13 11 2009
JJ

I’d love to keep educating my own kids but that government voucher check hasn’t shown up so I can’t. Damn the government for stopping me!

13 11 2009
JJ

A Conversation Valerie Moon Tipped Me to: What’s Selfish According to Conservatives:

The following is the conversation which I thought was interesting enough to share. It amazes me that Matt is someone I once worked closely with. We were collegues for about two years back in the mid 90’s. Yet Matt does not show any concern or even a moderate appreciation for my husband’s near death or our three year ordeal. Party politics come first, before friendship. He tells me I am “demanding” and “grasping” for “entitlements.” At the end, Matt even portrays himself and conservatives as the victims when he plays the martyr, stating, “Remember my friends, we are the selfish ones because we want to be free.” Is this the kind of attitude we want in our elected leaders?

I wonder how “demanding” Matt would be if the situation were reversed? In any case, it’s irrelevant to me because I favor health care for EVERYONE, even Matt (who already benefits from government health care as an elected official).

The following is the actual conversation which does not, in any way, inspire confidence in conservatives or their interest in the welfare of the people. Still, I urge you to read it so that you can get a clear picture of exactly where their hearts lie. . .

14 11 2009
JJ

Cw, does that distinction seriously make sense to you? Is it a military-esque Don’t Ask Don’t Tell compromise, sort of? I ask because otherwise it sounds like a complete logic disconnect — as if the Church is saying no problem having gay and otherwise sinful needy folk in for dinner with our own charity money, that’s what we’re here for, and there may be gay folk among all the sinners working here naturally paid with Church money BUT suddenly extending that to necessary living benefits like health insurance for the loved ones of Church employees at home depending on them, is immoral and unconscionable if they are gay?

I could understand (logically, at least) taking the stance that “teh gay” had to be kept out altogether as so offensive to God but the Church doesn’t do that.

Once you have sinning folks of various moral failings being served, and all sorts of sinners including pro-choice voters and women on the Pill and/or with babies conceived out of wedlock to support, and maybe even gay folk doing the serving on the payroll, where’s the morality in picking and choosing this one group (gay domestic partners) to be untouchable? WWJD . . .

14 11 2009
Nance Confer

Thanks for the link to that “conversation,” JJ.

So what will this couple have to do to get care for the husband after his COBRA runs out? Sell anything they own to qualify for Medicaid? Maybe that’s fair. Why should they own a home or a decent car and still expect tax dollars to keep her husband alive? Or maybe we should think of the drain on society it would be to add yet another poor, homeless, resourceless family to their community.

Aside from anything J would do, it just doesn’t seem like a good way to run an economy or a society.

Nance

14 11 2009
Lynn

JJ:

it sounds like a complete logic disconnect — as if the Church is saying no problem having gay and otherwise sinful needy folk in for dinner…

You’ve reminded me that even Rick Warren has homosexual guests in for dinner; it’s after dinner that he campaigns against them and equates their sexuality with pedophilia and beastiality. To say that he’s “against gays” is complete unreasonableness.

14 11 2009
JJ

Right Lynn, good recall — and Nance is righter than I was getting off track with the Catholic Church, that the bottom line on these issues is healthy society and healthy economy, not the religious philosophy of any individual or church.

14 11 2009
JJ

We just came from a wonderful day full of men and women, boys and girls enjoying the Millstone Plantation together — spinning and weaving, playing instruments and singing in costumes, oh and Shakespeare. No praying or saluting but also there was a dearth of the kind of tough-guy testosterone-saturated sex, lies and videotape that cause so many social ills.

14 11 2009
JJ

Of course it was non-profit educational, and partly government-grant supported. That probably makes it gay off the bat?

14 11 2009
Crimson Wife

Gays aren’t being singled out for non-coverage of unmarried domestic partners. A heterosexual employee can’t get his/her domestic partner covered by insurance either.

14 11 2009
JJ

I was wondering about that — because it’s all living in sin?

Even if they were, say, senior citizen widow/widower whose financial life dictated they not “marry” though they commit to each other and live as man and wife, that kind of thing? Are you sure that’s the moral doctrine or the financial doctrine, because family benefits are so expensive these days?

And — what about children born out of wedlock? Not covered, or covered?

14 11 2009
Lynn

Waah. 😦 My comment disappeared, so I’ll try again. JJ, if two of the same comment end up being posted, will you delete one so I don’t look like a complete idiot? Much thanks 😀

CW:

Gays aren’t being singled out for non-coverage of unmarried domestic partners.

The Catholic Church’s threat to halt services is in direct response to a proposed same-sex marriage law which is expected to pass. It would require the Church the extend the same employee benefits that they currently provide to “opposite-sex” married couples to same-sex married couples. This story has nothing to do with domestic partnerships.

14 11 2009
JJ

And do they rule on the morality of other family members before deigning to cover them . . .

14 11 2009
JJ

A legally wed yet unfaithful spouse for example is breaking one of the ten commandments. No health insurance for YOU! Or does the Church doctrine not exclude that quite so adamantly?

15 11 2009
Religious Left Emerges, Religious Right Erodes « Cocking A Snook!

[…] this weekend, a discussion of Catholic homeless and soup kitchen services sprang up last week here, debating the social effects of believing in the higher moral authority of “church […]

15 11 2009
Nance Confer

And this is why we can never ever let gay people marry. They might get health insurance.

Never forget the bottom line.

Nance

16 11 2009
Crimson Wife

It would require the Church the extend the same employee benefits that they currently provide to “opposite-sex” married couples to same-sex married couples. This story has nothing to do with domestic partnerships.

The Church does not recognize homosexual unions as marriages. Therefore, it would consider a same-sex couple to be unmarried domestic partners regardless of whether D.C. grants them legal recognition as “married”.

16 11 2009
JJ

CW, if you’re not going by the gay thing or the living in sin thing, that just further undercuts the moral argument of acting in obedience to higher authority of church doctrine — what church doctrine demands the faithful leave loved ones at home with no benefits or protection or care, while employed by the Church?

Unless maybe, hmmm, are you going by the verses about Jesus and the disciples abandoning their own families and going walk-about with the guys? Is THAT the higher authority being served?

And it also undercuts the real-world secular legality of a dime of any public funding going to any church authority in the first place. If it’s Church doctrine running the show rather than the State’s civil government, then even supposedly secular, civil programs must be kept totally separate. When the public’s money is collected to serve Americans as our secular system provides, without discrimination and without regard to any established religion, then Church doctrine CANNOT be allowed as part of it.

No tax support — special education funds to parochial schools or scholarships to Notre Dame say, let alone the insanely favorable tax treatment all churches get at every level of government — would be constitutionally permissible. And no Catholic Church could use a single public dollar for any purpose, without becoming complicit in everything else the government does.

So under this argument, the Church itself would by doctrine have to refuse ALL public funding for any purpose, or else abandon its own funding fungibility argument about abortion being pressed by conservatives including Catholic bishops:

. . .the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops apparently will stop at nothing. They are now using the bizarrely flawed argument of “fungibility” to make their case. In brief, they claim that unless abortion is specifically, broadly and totally excluded from health care reform, taxpayers really will be paying for abortion services. This argument is so weak that it’s hard to believe a rational person would accept it, but it has worked in the past and may well work again.

. . .The fungibility doctrine has been used successfully before, to restrict U.S. taxpayer dollars from going to clinics in the poorest developing countries that provided family planning services. The argument was that by funding birth control, the U.S. would be freeing up money for abortion. The reality is that 70,000 women a year die in developing countries from unsafe abortion and there are five million cases of severe complications each year. By funding birth control, we would limit unintended and unsafe pregnancies and save lives.

“Pro-life” legislators and groups such as the Catholic bishops’ conference that put forth the fungibility doctrine were – whether they meant to or not – contributing to the death of women from preventable, pregnancy-related causes.

In the U.S. health care reform debate over covering abortion services, “fungibility” is a doctrine being used by those who have no medical, health or moral grounds to stand on. It is a doctrine born of fear. It is difficult to imagine any religious or ethical sentiment that could justify it.

16 11 2009
Lynn

The Church does not recognize homosexual unions as marriages. Therefore, it would consider a same-sex couple to be unmarried domestic partners regardless of whether D.C. grants them legal recognition as “married”.

Snark aside, I’m getting confused.

CW, you are probably following this story more closely than I, but this argument seems to be very different from statements by spokespersons for the Church. If this is really their argument, what’s to stop the Catholic Church from saying that they don’t consider mixed-race unions “marriages,” but rather “unmarried domestic partners”? (I suppose it could explain, however, why the Catholic Church never felt obliged to report its child abusers to authorities: maybe the Church doesn’t consider priest-on-child unions as “crimes,” but rather unfortunate mistakes…[you say potatoe; I say potatah].) We all get to do our own defining before deciding whether or not a law applies to us? Really? Anarchy anyone?

Ironically, it’s the Catholic Church that has put the Catholic Church under the microscope, revealing – with stunning clarity – why it should not be receiving public funds of any kind – including tax exemptions. What a wake-up call to the law-abiding citizens of this country. I wonder what other laws the Catholic Church breaks in the name of its “higher authority.” Wow.

16 11 2009
Lynn

Actually,… I think I’m going to stop paying taxes today. In light of the argument of “fungibility,” as long as the Catholic Church receives government subsidies, I, as a taxpayer, will be paying for their “work.” And, I don’t wanna.

16 11 2009
JJ

It sure makes the parental rights, pro-family, pro-life argument difficult for conservatives in or out of any church to make:

Families are hurt and discriminated against in a thousand unAmerican ways around the world, women and children both here and abroad suffer and die, and lose the god-and-government guaranteed rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness we are united to stand for, yet that is what conservatives and especially the Religious Right demand and fight other Americans (and the United Nations) at all costs to secure?

16 11 2009
Lynn

Thinking about “families hurt in a thousand unAmerican ways around the world,” I’m reminded about Vatican claims that condoms have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass! :O

Vatican Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, 2003:

The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the ‘net’ that is formed by the condom.

These margins of uncertainty… should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger.

http://tinyurl.com/c4epyz

16 11 2009
JJ

Oh dear . . .

16 11 2009
Nance Confer

Never letting the truth get between them and the bottom line — organized religion, again.

Now to read how the lefty religious are so much better. . .

Nance

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: