Thread: Parent's Rights, where do you stand?

Originally Posted by djwolford

For those of you who haven't heard anything about it, there is a group trying to push a constitutional amendment to guarantee a parent's rights to raise their children as they see fit, including the right to spank kids, have more control over the type of education that the child receives, and a handful of other issues.

My issue is this seems like a thinly veiled attempt to violate other parts of the constitution and bill of rights, such as separation of church and state. If you want you child to be educated in a manner other than known facts, then please send them to a private school, do not force the government schools to bend the curriculum to fit your specific needs.

Also, why does this need to be a constitutional amendment, as far as I can tell, the current laws and regulations allow for sufficient freedom for raising a child. Spanking your child has never been a crime, beating them has. There is a distinct difference.

Originally Posted by MrTroy

My issue is this seems like a thinly veiled attempt to violate other parts of the constitution and bill of rights, such as separation of church and state. If you want you child to be educated in a manner other than known facts, then please send them to a private school, do not force the government schools to bend the curriculum to fit your specific needs.

Also, why does this need to be a constitutional amendment, as far as I can tell, the current laws and regulations allow for sufficient freedom for raising a child. Spanking your child has never been a crime, beating them has. There is a distinct difference.

I'm thinking (I could be mistaken on this one.) that there were a few cases where kids were taken out of private schools against the parent's will and forced to go to public school because it was in the best interests of the child. (I think that it actually was due to the curriculum at the private schools, although that obviously wasn't pointed out in the story that I was watching.) As for separation of church and state I hate to jump into this because it's a different topic, but that is not guaranteed by the constitution/bill of rights. The only thing we're guaranteed is that we can practice any religion we want to without government interference or bias towards any specific religion. I guess that's a matter of how you interpret the 1st amendment to the constitution.

Back on topic though, I don't see there being a need for a constitutional amendment for this either. The reason that it's being brought up is because the U.S. Constitution overrides foreign treaties, whereas state laws don't. I guess the UN treaty is seen as threatening some of our individual freedoms, and some politicians are trying to get that in place to cockblock the UN here.

To be quite honest I don't know very much about either side just yet, but the issue intrigued me and I wanted to see where some of you guys stand on it.

Originally Posted by djwolford

Back on topic though, I don't see there being a need for a constitutional amendment for this either. The reason that it's being brought up is because the U.S. Constitution overrides foreign treaties, whereas state laws don't. I guess the UN treaty is seen as threatening some of our individual freedoms, and some politicians are trying to get that in place to cockblock the UN here.

Again, I don't get at all the impression that this UN convention violates any parental method or right that the vast majority of people in the US deems reasonable, including spanking.

Also, as I said earlier, a constitutional amendment should not be used as a stage for activism, and upstaging the UN in this manner is nothing more than activism. This is also why the flag burning amendment didn't pass and resulted in little more than a farcical display on the House floor.

I'm thinking (I could be mistaken on this one.) that there were a few cases where kids were taken out of private schools against the parent's will and forced to go to public school because it was in the best interests of the child. (I think that it actually was due to the curriculum at the private schools, although that obviously wasn't pointed out in the story that I was watching.)

That seems hard to believe. Perhaps the "private schools" were not accredited institutions, and thus didn't fulfill the state's requirement for children to be in school up to a certain age?

Oh, I just remembered something about Amish folks in PA and their children fulfilling minimum education requirements.

I'll look into this later, but only if I both remember and feel like it.

OOOOH, what do you think of me now????

Originally Posted by MrTroy

There shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion. This means that there is no official religion, and it means that religious things must be separated from government sponsorship. At the same time, the government can't prevent you from forming or attending any church, or practicing any religion or no religion at all on private property. Plain and simple.

Or it could mean that all religions have equal access to a public facility or even public funds, with no prejudice expressed to any particular religion that could be interpreted as approbation by the state thereof.