Article 14: Infringing on Religious Upbringing

When the founding fathers set up our government, they said that our government’s success depended on a moral people, and that if morality left our society, democracy would fail. In his Farewell Address, George Washington said:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens….Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principal.

Unfortunately, history lessons in school leave out this important aspect of the founding fathers’ beliefs. Instead, certain political groups in our nation have labored to destroy the pillars of religion and morality in our schools, courts, and now they seek to destroy religion and morality in our homes. We are fast becoming a secular society.

This is due in part to the idea of the separation of church and state, which was never set up to protect the people from religion, but to protect religion from the government. Sadly, this idea has been twisted to do exactly what it was supposed to protect the church from—religious persecution.
The UNCRC gives the state the ability to override a parent’s decisions about the religious upbringing of his children. Because the history and beliefs of the men who crafted our constitution have been edited in our schools, we no longer have the historic background to understand the threat that we now face and why that threat is unconstitutional. We sit like lame ducks waiting to be picked off by the hunters. In an effort to be tolerant of everyone our political atmosphere has become intolerant of religion. Let’s look at Article 14 of the UNCRC:

1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

It doesn’t look dire on the surface, does it? After all, state parties are supposed to respect the rights and duties of the parents to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right. What exactly does “provide direction” entail? That will be up to a judge’s discretion. If the judge decides that providing direction does not mean telling your teenager that he must go to your place of worship while he is under your roof, then you could be prohibited from ensuring that your children attend church with you. It is important to note that there were two paragraphs that were removed from this treaty that had strong language to protect parent’s rights when it came to religious upbringing. The final text that we see here omitted that language—why would the authors do that if the purpose of this article was to protect parental rights?

The majority of scholars believe that religion for children is brainwashing. This country relies on the morals taught within the confines of religion to make the country work. In order to have the peaceful transfer of power that we enjoy when one political party takes the place of another, we must have a respect for authority. Religion teaches that respect. Every country needs a moral base, how else can a relatively few number of police and security figures keep the peace? If the entire population is amoral, crime will become rampant and our peace will dissolve into chaos.

I take issue with the idea that religion is brainwashing. As someone who was raised in a Christian home and went to church every Sunday, I still had to have my own personal experience where I made a choice to follow Christ. It could never have been forced on me by my parents. They could require that I attend church, but once I was an independent adult the choice was going to be mine. I knew that and they knew that. They also understood that their responsibility was to teach me the foundations of their faith and that it would ultimately be my choice to follow that faith, or choose my own. That is how this nation works. People are not robots who can be brainwashed. Every “religious” person that I’ve met has had their own experiences that either confirm their faith, or force them to explore their belief system.

Scholars don’t take this into account because they think that those who have embraced a different belief system are either weak or un-intelligent, and therefore susceptible to brainwashing. This is why scholars support the UNCRC; they feel that they need to save the weak and un-intelligent masses from themselves by prohibiting “brainwashing.”

The problem with this point of view is that secularism is its own form of religion. It is a belief system. It is not right for the government to impose a certain belief system on the people, yet that is exactly what the scholars who support the UNCRC would have the government do. Our political climate is such that the faith community must be tolerant of the secularists, but yet the secularists are not tolerant of faith.

Can anyone honestly see a judge ruling that a secularist parent should have to send his child to church? I can’t see that happening because I can’t see a social worker ever advocating that the child sue his parents over not being able to attend church. And I would never want to see that. I respect every parent’s right to raise his or her own child the way that he sees fit—as long as he is a fit parent. Obviously cases of abuse are a different story, but we have a system that deals with abusive parents in this country. This treaty goes above and beyond obvious abuse cases to allow a judge to interfere in family life over private family decisions. I would like to think that that doesn’t pose a threat to our freedom because a judge wouldn’t use his influence to promote his own worldview. Unfortunately, there have been too many crazy court cases lately where judges have done just that. When a rancher in Arizona can no longer protect his own property from illegal immigrants without being sued by those people who are on his land and in our country illegally, I have lost faith in the judicial system.

I love my country. It is the best country in the world, but I fear that we are on the brink of throwing away exactly what makes us so great in an effort to be like everyone else. CEOs of companies don’t get where they are by being like everyone else. Our nation didn’t become the leader of the free world by being like everyone else. Why should we start now?

The First Amendment of the Constitution provides that “Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The UNCRC is unconstitutional because many religions view the act of parenting as a religious responsibility. Since the UNCRC can prohibit a parent from raising his child according to his religious views, it prohibits the free exercise of that parent’s religion.

Join the movement at the Parental Rights website to gain constitutional protection of our parental rights. We need to stand against the ratification of this treaty. Remember that the people in Washington D.C. work for the people of this nation. We need to stand up and demand that they honor their oath of office to uphold and protect our constitutional rights.