In Response...

After my latest post, I received this comment from "Come Out to Play", (hereinafter referred to as COP):

  "Hysterical bunk. Yes it helps protect children where it has been signed. (Like every other nation except the US and basket case Somalia who say they will sign when they can start acting as a nation again.) America is not good because it is out of step. You cannot say whether it protects kids in the States or not, you haven't signed it so you don't know. The Convention makes clear that PARENTS have the job of upbringing and guidance - the state is there to support that and to step in when parenting fails. It also says kids have rights like what they believe (a big no-no for some christians, muslims and others) and to be consulted about the things that matter in their lives. Oh, and to be protected against abuse, to have a decent standard of living, the right to a name and registration, to play, to be educated ..... dangerous stuff indeed - if you are someone who wants to run your family like a tyrant. Some seem to argue that children are property, to be commanded and forced at the complete whim of parents, others like me regard the choice to have children as a joyous right, then it becomes responsibility, it becomes holding a life in sacred trust. That is what is behind the Convention, the PRA talk hogwash and spread untruths and myths."

 Whew! That's quite a strong comment, but I think it is one which deserves a little analysis. Just exactly who is "Come Out to Play"? If you look at his (I don't know the gender of the commenter, so I use the term "his" figuratively) User Profile, you will see that he is from "Llandestyn : Powys : United Kingdom". I thought so... Someone running down the USA is probably not from here. Also, if you click on the link to go to his web page, it takes you to http://www.fairplayforchildren.org/, an organization dedicated to "Promoting the Child's Right to Play since 1973 in the UK and Worldwide according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child."  HA! I found out who you really are! So the big backers of the CRC have to send out their 'COP's in order to silence the opponents of their agenda with a pre-written form to copy and paste onto the blogs of every single objector their trolls can find... It's a little annoying! Anyway, we'll humour 'COP' by responding to his comment below:

"Hysterical bunk." -- That is your opinion, which you are entitled to, at least here in the USA.  "Yes it helps protect children where it has been signed." -- Yes, certain portions of it do protect children. Nobody is saying that children should be mistreated.  "(Like every other nation except the US and basket case Somalia who say they will sign when they can start acting as a nation again.) America is not good because it is out of step." -- Not good because it is out of step? The whole basis of our country is "Out of step" with the rest of the world, that's what makes our country great! Of course to those of you who can't stand the thought of people thinking for themselves and governing themselves, and want to set up the One World government, being out of step is terrible!  "You cannot say whether it protects kids in the States or not, you haven't signed it so you don't know." -- No, I haven't signed it, and don't intend to. Have you signed it? Also, just because you sign something doesn't mean you know everything in it...  "The Convention makes clear that PARENTS have the job of upbringing and guidance - the state is there to support that and to step in when parenting fails." Yeah, that's what I'm scared of. The state already has too much power.  "It also says kids have rights like what they believe (a big no-no for some christians, muslims and others) and to be consulted about the things that matter in their lives. Oh, and to be protected against abuse, to have a decent standard of living, the right to a name and registration, to play, to be educated" Nobody is arguing that children shouldn't have a name, shouldn't be able to play, shouldn't get an education, etc. What we are arguing is who should have the authority of making those decisions. As long as the parent's aren't abusive, or totally incapable, the responsibility is the parents. Period. As for beliefs, nobody can make anybody believe anything. We can only try to impress others with what we believe. That being said, it is ultimately the responsibility of the parents, not the Government, to decide what children are taught.  "..... dangerous stuff indeed - if you are someone who wants to run your family like a tyrant." -- There are already laws on the books to deal with people like that.  "Some seem to argue that children are property, to be commanded and forced at the complete whim of parents," -- Who is responsible for raising children? Who pay the bills, take care of them when they get sick, who provide children with shelter and food? Who is ultimately responsible for their actions? Is it not the parents? In a way, children are the property of the parents, in that the parents are completely responsible for them.  "others like me regard the choice to have children as a joyous right, then it becomes responsibility, it becomes holding a life in sacred trust." --Good for you! If only the rest of the world took the high calling so seriously...  "That is what is behind the Convention, the PRA talk hogwash and spread untruths and myths." -- The PRA is not an organization, it is a proposed amendment to the constitution. If you are referring to ParentalRights.org, all I can say is once again, that is your opinion, which you are entitled to. Until you give me some good hard proof, don't call anybody a liar.

 In conclusion, I have to say that 'COP' didn't offer anything more than an opinion, one which holds little bearing on us here in the US of A. He doesn't know any more than we do about how this treatise would actually effect us in America.
 What are your thoughts? I would love to hear from you on this topic!
   Andrew B.