Home schooling Christian sect leader Michael Farris has found a new avenue for separating children from American society; parental rights. His organization ParentalRights.org is promoting a constitutional amendment that in his view would allow parents to have the final say in their children’s lives without the intrusion of government.
Tomorrow Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) are planning to introduce the Parental Rights Amendment in Congress. Claiming more than 60 co-sponsors this amendment states that:
- The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.
- Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
- No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.
Farris, a longtime homeschooling separatist leader believes that by separating children from society they can be formed into Christian leaders without the influence of what he calls “government” schools. His Patrick Henry College has a specific goal to infiltrate the U.S. government with Christian right wing staffers. The homeschooling separatist movement grew out of the Christian school movement founded as a response to the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision desegregating public schools.
Farris considers the rights of homosexuals and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child examples of the need for Christian dominion over the government.
On homosexual rights he sounds the alarm:
There were early warning signs that homosexual "marriage" should be taken seriously. On May 27, 1993, the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to three same-sex couples. A voter initiative eventually trumped this decision, but at least by this date the battle was fully engaged.
A friend in Congress recently told me that if the issue had been brought to the floor of the House 15-20 years ago, there is no doubt that a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage would have passed. At this point, there is substantial doubt that such an amendment will ever pass.
The pro-family movement waited until Congress believed there was a real problem before attempting a constitutional solution; even though legal experts have been united for nearly a decade in saying that the only way to stop the courts' march toward homosexual marriage is with a federal constitutional amendment. By now, our opponents have gained so much strength in both law and culture that the prospects for the right solution are daunting at best.
I use the story of the battle to save marriage solely as a cautionary tale. The threats to parental rights are real and growing. And we must face the fact that the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is not explicitly written in the text of the Constitution. If we wish to preserve this right, it is my contention that now is the time to put parents' rights into black and white—that is, to adopt an explicit constitutional amendment. If we wait until the threat fully matures, we will have waited too long.
In 2002 Farris published a novel, Forbid Them Not with the premise that a thinly disguised Hillary Clinton had been elected president. The first act of her new administration was to secure the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Farris now says about that novel, “I do not claim the gift of prophecy, but there is a looming possibility that I may be proven right. If this treaty becomes binding on the United States, the government would have the power to intervene in a child's life ‘for the best interest of the child’."
Farris explicitly states that he is on a mission from God:
This is the fight of our generation. We will be falsely accused of wanting to protect child abuse. We will be falsely accused of meddling unnecessarily with the sacred Constitution. But we cannot be daunted by such duplicity. God has given us our children and our citizenship. We must use our citizenship now to make sure that our children will have the same rights as we do to raise the next generation in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
All truth is God's truth. Man's knowledge is limited. We think we know something only to find that future generations have found that we really didn't know what we are talking about.
The truth is that God created the family. It is God's view of the family that is reflected in our western civilization and in our law until very recently. If we tear down this God-based view of the family, then all of the God-based principles in our society are ultimately at risk.
The reason we have parental rights is because our law assumes that God gave children to parents, not the state. If we eliminate the assumption of God from our law, parental rights and human rights themselves are impossible.
If rights are based on man-made documents they are not rights, they are privileges. What man makes, man can change.
Only if rights come from God is it illegitimate for man to take another's rights.
The Parental Rights Amendment is a natural outgrowth of the Dominionist or Christian Reconstructionist Movement, a small but fervent right wing cell that believes only Christians should rule.
According to Mary McCarthy in her essay Reconstruction Theology and Home Education:
The Dominion theology movement places Judeo-Christian biblical law above any and all constitutional law, including the U.S. Constitution. Postmillennialists believe that righteous human beings, essentially servants of Christ, must achieve positions of influence in societies in order to prepare the world for the Messiah's return
In his 1996 book, With God on Our Side, William Martin used a sampling of the views of several noted Reconstructionists to give a sense of how a Reconstructed America would be: "The federal government would play no role in regulating business, public education, or welfare [S]ome government would be visible at the level of counties but citizens would be answerable to church authorities on most matters subject to regulation income taxes would not exceed ten percent - the biblical tithe - and social security would disappear [P]ublic schools would be abolished in favor of home-schooling arrangements, and families would operate on a strict patriarchal pattern. The only people permitted to vote would be members of 'biblically correct' churches. Most notably, a theonomic order would make homosexuality, adultery, blasphemy, propagation of false doctrine, and incorrigible behavior by disobedient children subject to the death penalty, preferably administered by stoning a reconstructed America would have little room for Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, or even non-Reconstructionist Christians. 'The Christian', one Reconstructionist author has asserted, 'must realize that pluralism is a myth R.J. Rushdoony, also regards pluralism as a heresy, since, in the name of toleration, the believer is asked to associate on a common level of total acceptance with the atheist, the pervert, the criminal, and the adherents of other religions."
The Parental Rights Movement is finding traction just as right wing cells and military insurrection movements are being promoted. The election of Barack Obama brings the right wing back into its militia-friendly and in ways more comfortable home as a persecuted minority fighting for the Truth. Only time will tell if this movement produced another Patrick Henry, Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph.
Comments
This article is an alarming misrepresentation of the homeschooling movement, HSLDA, Michael Farris, and the proposed Parental Rights Amendment. There are more than two million home educated children in this country. Home educators merely seek to protect our freedom to educate our children as we see fit as parents who want the best for our children. And by the way, there are many indicators that we are doing a far better job of educating our children than the government schools. Homeschooling is not about isolating children from society. On the contrary, home educated children tend to have more interaction with the world than children who are locked inside a school building all day long. It is a myth that homeschoolers are isolated from society. And by the way, you neglected to mention that home educated students have higher SAT and ACT scores than their public school counterparts. Do your research before you write inflammatory and false articles in the future. You have grossly mischaracterized the homeschooling movement. But I can understand why those who have a socialist agenda might feel threatened by the success of the homeschooling movement. It is a mainstream, grass-roots effort to raise children in the best way possible, with the help of others in our country who care about the welfare of children. Our agenda is to promote the best interests of our children. What is your agenda?
FREE HOME SCHOOLING HELP
www.TheEasyEssay.com is a free program that is being used from Special Services Education to college education, FCAT, SAT, ACT test preparation, home schooling, and educational rehabilitation, as well as in business for concise, organized and targeted memos, speeches, reports, and recommendations.
As a former English teacher, I am aware of how hard teachers try to teach students to write essays. We applaud their efforts. In an effort to help, we are offering this as a free service so that everyone can take advantage of its simplicity and put their time and energy to a greater and better good.
I agree with everything that Jennifer Maassen said. I would like to add that many special ed kids need true one to one attention that cannot be given in a classroom, no matter how great the teacher. It is unfair to punish a kid who is both, learning disabled and gifted. My best interest is for my child.
The real PRA question is, “Whose definition of parenting?” The Parental Rights Amendment is a Trojan Horse. Senator John Warner observed in 1996 the PRA would give the government the right to interfere in the family if it could be justified by “demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and ***not otherwise served***”(emphasis added). I was opposed to it, but in the last year at least 3 children have died because their parents chose prayer over medical care. The PRA would have enabled the government to exercise its “compelling interest” to step in and save children’s lives. Perhaps government “defining and enforcing parenting” isn’t such a bad idea. The PRA would enable government to remove a child from homeschooling if it determined that the child was being harmed, simply by demonstrating the child would be a burden to society. For example, white supremacist parents teaching their children armed insurrection is necessary to change our government. From the left, it would enable the government to require children attend pre-school where they can learn American values like environmentalism. From the right, it would enable the government to require children be taught fundamentalist ideals like creationism. I do not think the people supporting the PRA are actually reading it but are acting out of loyalty to a perceived leader because their opposition seems focused on keeping government out of the family when the PRA enables the exact opposite.
As a native born San Franciscan, I am disappointed at the whole tone of this article. I wonder if people listen to how bigotted they sound when they are busy pointed the finger at those they call bigotted, racist, etc. And, how ignorant they sound about the realities of homeschooling. Personally, I'm ashamed of my birth city when I see articles such as this one! And embarassed by lack of logic in statements such as "new avenue for separating children from American society." Just, pray tell, how homeschooling children are separated from American society? The average homeschooling child is more active and involved in their community than any 10 of the average public schooled children! If this display of ignorance and lack of logically thinking is what public school taught you is it any wonder that folks don't want their children attending public school?
STOP THE TREATY
nheld(dot)com(slash)StopTheTreaty(dot)htm
Not all homeschoolers want this PRA.
I second Donna Brooks' comment. Ron, your article is absolutely shameful in its approach.
Or maybe you already drank the Socialist Kool-aid?
As a dedicated advocate for parental rights and supporter of this amendment, I ask for one simple favor. When addressing your opponent in this debate, show respect, not rhetoric, not name-calling, not unfounded inflamatory comments, and not accusations of being a Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph. Your vicious language reveals your ideological biases and your illogical arguments. I will not waste my time to address your rants.
I have always believed that forcing one's views even on one's own children is incredibly arrogant and destructive. Most of the evangelicals that I have known have broken away from the beliefs that they were raised with. What makes them arrogant, in my book, is that they assume that they'll do a much better job than their parents did because, after all, they're totally right.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!