Convention for the rights of the child is doing something wonderful - 06/01/2003


I am a student doing a research paper about the rights of the child and your website popped up. Just for a moment, think about some of the things that are happening to children around the world. We have it easy here in the U. S. (of course we know terrible things happen anyways - but not as often as in some countries). I really have no reason to fear that the state will take control over what goes on with my child. Of course you could say that they do this through the schools, but, as a student getting in to teaching, we are trying hard to insure a quality and caring atmosphere for our nation's children.

I feel that the convention for the rights of the child is doing something wonderful. They are making new legislation that will help some of the children who are in dire need (for example, children of war). I see nothing wrong with that. I was affended by the way the page was formatted. It seems that every amendment was somehow twisted to conform to how you want this interpreted - rather than the truth.



Hi Christine. Thanks for your email. We agree that there are many children in this world living in unacceptable conditions. However, the Conventions for the Rights of the Child is not the answer. You say we twisted the wording to fit our own agenda. I say we're simply being realistic as opposed to idealistic. This has an enormous potential to limit the ability of parents to raise their children in accordance to their deeply-held religious beliefs, and to lovingly discipline them. It has a tendency to promote the idea that when it comes to children's choices, there is no right or no wrong - it is all simply individualistic expression. These philosophies are decimating children's potential in public schools in the U.S. With a lack of personal accountability, teenage pregnancy, drug use, and violent crime are skyrocketing, while test scores plummet.

Let me give you an example of our concerns. If you look at the writings of our founding fathers, it is abundantly clear that the first amendment was adopted to restrict the federal government's ability to interfere in free religious expression. Yet in 1947, activist judges decided that the fourteenth amendment (originally a racial civil rights amendment) made the first amendment apply to the individual states as well. Then other activist judges twisted Thomas Jefferson's notion of a "wall of separation" between church and state, and determined that such a wall really exists and must be impregnable. Since the 1960's, religious expression has been repeatedly stripped out of the public forum for fear of a label of government endorsement. The framers of our constitution never intended for government entities to ignore religion. Yet activist judges have caused schools and government agencies to practically run shrieking in the other direction when faced with a religious expression. I tell you this because what you see as benign wording in this U.N. document can and will be interpreted and enforced in ways that will likely make our "twisted interpretations" look conservative.

I think it's wonderful that you are going to be a teacher. I pray that God will guide you as you instruct our youths.

In Christ,

Ben and Jennifer Rast
Contender Ministries