Senators line up to tell U.N. to leave kids alone 31 already committed to oppose treaty giving world

5 year-olds do not need sexual education. If and when they might need it is up to the parents. A child's mind should not have to think about sexual things until a certain age when they can handle the information. Earlier than that, it only distracts them and they don't understand and never will understand until they are they are of an appropriate age.

Unfortunately, this is seldom the case now. I applaud all home-schoolers. They are able to control exactly what their children learn and when they learn it. They also network with other home schoolers to round out the areas most effectively like music, the arts and sciences, beginning with Latin which is the basis for all natural laws: medicine, law, science, english, spanish, french, italian, taxonomy, biology, etc. All based on Latin. These are going to be the leaders of tomorrow because they have not been dumbed-down and brainwashed by the government..

reply to post by Abject


Well in the USA I hope we continue to have such parents who want to raise their own kids. Schools are for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic. (And higher math, geography, foreign language, science, history and computer programming.) Music, art and phys. ed. are nice too. Not much else is needed. I think it's cool that my 7th grader is going to learn some cooking this year.

Calling parents "biased third parties" makes it clear where you stand. Do you have children? Let's be clear about this, and I don't think there's anyone in my kids' school system that would disagree. I do get to bias them until they're of age.

Why do you think I am "biased" and the school system, or the UN, is not?

reply to post by pthena


Now I feel silly... neither have I! I've been studying philosophical treatises on politics and haven't gotten around to *actual* executions of the theory. It is terribly good fun poking holes in someone's self-contradictory arguments, though.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

It is terribly good fun poking holes in someone's self-contradictory arguments, though.

It's fun, but I doubt it does much good. I'm going to look for some more substantive discussions.

reply to post by Starbug3MY


Don't you remember Freud? Infants are sexual beings, it is a means of self-exploration and self-gratification. Of course, I am sure you never touched your junk before you were thirteen.

Homeschooling is a great way to shut your child's mind off from the world of ideas! I don't see what use it is by itself, unless you want to raise your children to be anachronous duplicates of yourself, unable to fit in with the rest of twenty-first century society and thought.

This is just one more example of why we need to get out of the UN!

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by ohioriver

 

First of all - these are recommendations, NOT laws or enforceable in any way, and the message is being misrepresented.

Second of all, your first of all assumption is incorrect.

A legally binding instrument

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the first legally binding international instrument to incorporate the full range of human rights—civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. In 1989, world leaders decided that children needed a special convention just for them because people under 18 years old often need special care and protection that adults do not. The leaders also wanted to make sure that the world recognized that children have human rights too.

Source

Note the words "A legally binding instrument". For the verbally challenged, that mean a contract that is enforceable under law.

That comes straight from the UN's mouth.

# Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

That's the way it should be. Telling your child what religion they are is a form of child abuse. You should be only allowed to educate your child on different religious institutions and let them pick one.

The united nations is the most corrupt and dangerous organization on the face of the earth right now.. It poses a greater threat to the world more than any other thing..

It is incrementally instituting socialism wherever and whenever it can.. The wake of death and lives ruined by the things the UN will do to the globe are beyond comprehension to decent people.

Originally posted by Sestias

If one is an extreme isolationist one might be against the United Nations as a concept. That kind of isolationism would require a completely amoral indifference to the rest of the world and to the suffering caused by genocides.

You've been reading my diary again, haven't you?

The simple fact is, we can't have it both ways. We can't have the US staying out of everyone's business and refusing to police the world AND at the same time have them leading the charge to impose "rights" on other countries that they want no part of.

I'm all for isolationism of the US. EXTREME isolationism. Come back home, hunker down, and button up the borders. No external trade or assistance, or anything else. Let the world fend for itself, since they whine and bitch so much about US interference. Give them their head, and let 'em run where they will - as long as it isn't straight into the US.

Boot the irrelevant UN HQ out of New York. They can set up shop elsewhere. I'm not completely heartless, though. They can set up on a beautiful tropical island, and run their mess from there.

Bikini Atoll comes to immediate mind.

Maybe they should start with stopping child sex slave/work trade and enforcing the idea every child should have an education, food, shelter, clothing, and oh maybe stop killing female children because they are not a boy.

This would eliminate 99% of child atrocities in the world and then they can look at the other 1%.

just because your a parent doesnt mean your a good parent who make wise and good decisions

just because your a kid (under the age of 15) doesnt mean you know whats right from wrong by your parent/s decision alone.

The government, not that of the people, has this hope that a 'State' education 'program' will give them a head start with the process of induction.....concerning any religion.

This makes sense, because it makes sense, though not Good sense.
Home schooling appears the best option from here.
A child should be left with their own choice, beginning with that with gave them life.

Experience in the 'modern' world should give a youth the balance of perspective necessary to make their own choice as to what to believe from there forward.

This.....and then is a 'different' Age all together.
The world is not so 'foreign' anymore.
I'm sure you understand.


[edit on 23-8-2010 by Perseus Apex]

Do you really want government to regulate the children?

This is what ATS has become. The hate, paranoia and narrow-minded-ness has reached a total new level.

Just to clarify, could please anyone give me 5 negative points regarding this treaty.

Thank you.

reply to post by Fatality


Because every time we sign a treaty, we give up more of our Constitution; A treaty signed by the President, and ratified by the Senate supercedes the laws in this country. We have a Constitution that protects our children already, we don't need another.

I believe that children should have rights.

For too many long and desperate years, children have had no rights.

This has meant that they have had to live with abusive parents, and here in NZ too many children have been tortured and murdered by their parents or relatives.

And I am going to say this means Maori and Pacific islander children, mostly.

That is not being racist, it is being factual.

This is a very "tricky" situation and on the balance of how it is used in Europe I would err on the side of the Senators here.
The Uk had a very close call with the registration on Home Education last year but it was defeated.

Sweden
Sweden Punishes Parents Choosing to Homeschool Child

How much power should a government have in determining how a child should be educated? What laws did Domenic's parents break? They homeschooled their son. Should homeschooling a child be grounds for losing custody?

"In response to our inquiries, Swedish authorities have cited the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child to explain and defend their actions. If the U.S. were to ever ratify this treaty, as the White House and some members of Congress desire, then this sort of thing could occur here."

Domenic

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by pthena

 

Well hell, why do we not just throw the fricking Constitution out the window and just live by UN sanctioned treaties?

Can you show me the part of the treaty that negates or is in conflict with the constitution? Cite the article please.

Oh, noes, the UN!

Originally posted by Starbug3MY
5 year-olds do not need sexual education. If and when they might need it is up to the parents.

The treaty does not mention sexual education. It is about the rights of the child. Of course, if you would have read it, you would know that. But why read the treaty when you just can make stuff up, right?



[edit on 23-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]