Basic HTML Version
allowed to remain with parents, but
the human state will claim their
loyalties. Children will certainly "not
belong to their parents." They will
belong to "Big Brother" (the govern–
ment). In fact, in Mr. Orwell's pro–
phetic novel, children are encouraged
to spy on, turn in and terrorize their
parents!
Compare author Orwell's proph–
ecy with the equally prophetic words
of Jesus Christ, describing the time
before the return of Christ:
" ... the children shall rise up
against their parents, and cause them
to be put to death" (Matthew
10:21).
More Abomlnatlons
According to the
Public Jnterest,
a
scholarly journal espousing a gener–
ally profamily bias, research has
shown that traditionally most of the
legal institutions in the Western
world presumed as their basis the
family
as God made it.
Thus the
common law recognized husband and
wife as "one flesh"-just as Jesus
said (Matthew 19:6).
.
But the laws are changing. The old
common law "one flesh" rule has
been abolished. New court rulings
even seem almost designed to furtber
weaken the cohesiveness and unity of
the family.
Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court has
bent over backwards to give a woman
the right to aborta child even against
the right of that child's father to let
that child live! The U.S. Supreme
Court has held that, at least in
abortion cases, only the woman's
"right" has any legal importance. In
effect, the Court has said that there
is no family unit when it comes to
abortion decisions
(Planned Parent–
hood v. Danforth).
The Court has further weakened
the family unit by declaring that a
teenage girl who wants an abortion
owes no obedience to her own father
and mother. A teenager, says the
Court, has the right to get an abor–
tion without even having to tell her
parents.
It
is as if her parents do not
exist
(Baird v. Bellotti).
The trend is not confined to the
United States. In Britain the position
on teenage abortions is very similar
and children's rights are much her-
May 1980
alded. In Sweden, parents have abso–
lutely no right to spank their chil–
dren.
Professor Ulla Jacobssen of Stock–
holm University wants to inhibit par–
ents' God-given right to fulfill
Deuteronomy 6:7, which puts on par–
ents the duty of proper religious
instruction of children. ·
Says the Bible: ·"And thou shalt
teach them [the Bible laws] diligent–
ly unto thy children" (Deuteronomy
6:7).
Says Professor Jacobssen: "Par–
ents should never force their children
to take part in demonstrations, to
join in religious communion."
And in West Germany, a who1e
new legal code has gone into effect
concerning "children's rights." Ac–
cording to the
Neue Ruhr Zeitung,
"The new legislation empowers the
court of chancery to take action when
it considers that the child's rights are
being directly threatened ... This
new legislation will make it essential
for authoritarian parents to rethink
their attitudes."
Of course "authoritarian" can
mean any parents who desire to rear
their child in a religious heritage in
which "sin" means something more
than "not caring enough"!
The problem with the children's
rights movement is that it is aimed at
undermining parental authority. All
the "rights" that are vested in chil–
dren are rights against or claims on
parents! Such rights can only be
enforced by an outside authority in
competition with parents, namely,
the courts.
As political commentator Michael
Sobran notes, "By conferring on chil–
dren so-called rights, the state ac–
tually alters the structure of the
family." Professor Frank Sanders,
who teaches law at Harvard Law
School, says this about the child's
rights movement: "We are coming
closer to interfering in the tradition–
al, functioning family ... We're go–
ing to make being a parent tougher
and tougher. We're going to have to
explain our actions to the courts. The
ultimate absurdity would be if my
son, who gets mad at going to bed at
10:30, goes to court and asks for a
later bedtime. This is a trend one
needs to worry abou
t."
The child's rights movement is
aimed at changing families from
being cohesive units to being loose
alliances between individuals, each
armed with a full armament of rights
against the others. Such an idea may
preserve freedom in society at large,
where freedom is important. But in
the family, freedom is not as impor–
tant as sharing, cooperation and
mutual sacrifice.
In the family, children's rights can
only come at the expense of parents'
responsibility. The enforcement of
such rights means substantial outside
interference in the home.
As Mr. Sobran puts it, "So-called
children's rights mean, in practice,
increased state power over parents."
Just like
1984.
The Hlgher Clrcles
The movement to destroy the family
has not only infected the courts and
the bureaucracy.
It
has also infected
the American White House.
President Carter has established
the White House Conference on
Families (WHCF), the purpose of
which is to "strengthen the family."
Howev~r.
the official guidelines for
the WHCF allow for
any definition
of "family."
Moreover, the President has ap–
pointed people to be in charge of the
WHCF who do not believe in the
family as God made it! One presiden–
tia! appointee to the National Advi–
sory Committee to the WHCF, Rich–
ard Neuhaus, sums up tbe tone of
this conference, which is supposed to
strengthen the family: "We have no
intention of glorifying the bourgeois
family. Foster parents, lesbians and
gays, liberated families or what–
ever-all can do the job as long as
they provide children the loving and
permanent structure the traditional
families have typically pro–
vided. ..."
"No intention of glorifying the
bourgeois [middle class] family!"
What Mr. Neuhaus ' is saying is
that the people in charge of the
WHCF have no intention of
strengthening the family whose
structural core is heterosexual mar–
riage. What he is saying is that the
White House is prepared to promote
a society in which many different
17