Parents have a prior right: Difference between revisions

From PreparingYou
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(add commas, add a few words for clarity's sake)
mNo edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:parents.jpg|right]]There was a story on the [[Network]] of a large-scale operation at the Twelve Tribes Community in Germany where the Police came in and took all the children!
{{Parents have a prior right}}


German children services has not been limited by court oversight since the days of Hitler's youth movement.
Germany has been cited for human rights violations for years because of the abuses of their children service. Can this happen in other countries?
Recently Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, prosecuted a German family looking for asylum in America from being arrested for homeschooling in Germany.
The details of Attorney-General Holder’s arguments in the brief for Romeike v. Holder seem contradictory to Human rights as defined by the Article 26. Section 3. of the [[UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS]] (UDHR).
According to Holder, parents have no fundamental right to home-educate their children.
“[Holder’s office] argued that there was no violation of anyone's protected rights in a law that entirely bans homeschooling. There would only be a problem if Germany banned homeschooling for some but permitted it for others."<Ref>Atty General Holder Argues Parents Have No Right to Educate their Children
February 18, 2013 by Daniel Greenfield </Ref>
'''Article 26. of the [[UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS|UDHR]]'''
* Section 3    [[Parents have a prior right]] to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
A ''prior right'' would certainly be a more ''fundamental right'' and likely would be classified as a ''natural right''.
The [[UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS|UDHR]] list numerous rights that are called Human. Human rights are governed by [[Human Events]] and therefore are not fundamental but the result of what humans do. So a prior right to Human action would be fundamental.
If we read all of Article 26. we see:
'''Article 26.'''
#    Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
#    Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
#    [[Parents have a prior right]] to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
* "There are two major portions of constitutional rights of citizens—fundamental liberties and equal protection. The U.S. Attorney General has said this about homeschooling. There is no fundamental liberty to homeschool. So long as a government bans homeschooling broadly and equally, there is no violation of your rights. This is a view which gives some acknowledgement to the principle of equal protection but which entirely jettisons the concept of fundamental liberties."<Ref>Eric Holder: Banning Homeschooling Doesn’t Violate Fundamental Rights  Shane Vander Hart  February 12, 2013 -
http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2013/02/eric-holder-banning-homeschooling-doesnt-violate-fundamental-rights/</ref>
'''"fundamental liberties and equal protection"'''
Rights always have a correlative obligation or duty.
The [[UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS|UDHR]] makes mention that ''all... all nations ...  shall strive ...  by progressive measures... to secure their universal and effective ... observance.... among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.''
That is to say "Member States" will secure the obedience of all peoples and nations effectively submitted under their jurisdiction  through progressive socialism.
Another way of saying the same thing is by offering people equal protection from want of ''education'' or "life, liberty and security of person"<Ref>Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. </Ref> or "right to social security"<Ref>Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. </Ref> etc..
* “Protection draws to it subjection; subjection protection.” Coke, Litt.65.
Progressive socialists will promise people security, education and liberty but they will deliver all peoples and nations into the bondage of debt.
* 2 Peter 2:19-22 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.  For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.  But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
And they do all this through the covetous means of socialism.
* 2 Peter 2:3 ¶ And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
If a [[Human Being]] has a right to free education someone has an obligation to provide that education. It would be assumed that the parents have the prior obligation of nurturing their progeny. That obligation is imposed by nature itself and right reason according to the law of nature. Since life was bestowed upon a child by their parents the right to life and a full life begins with the parent. If that life is not provided by the parents then the obligation may fall to another by nature or by [[Human Events]].
If the parents have already obligated themselves to the state, asking the state to provide them with the benefit of life, their rights to their children may be claimed by the state because of prior or present benefits to the parents.
If parents were independent of government benefits and even excluded from those benefits, then the state could not claim a fundamental or legal right to take their children or regulate their children's education.
“Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself.”<Ref>Cassante ratione legis cessat, et ipsa lex.4 Coke, 38; 7 id. 69; Coke, Litt. 70 b. 122 a; Broom, Max. 3d Lond. ed. 151, 152; 4 Rep. 38; 13 East, 348; 4 Bingh. n.c. 388.</Ref>
[[File:Patronus.jpg|right|350px|thumb|Emperor Titus son of Emperor Vespasian like the Caesars before them were the [[Patronus]] of Rome and the [[Conscripted fathers]] were Men called father upon the earth. They and men like Saturninus would seal the [[Christian conflict]].]]
While your right to educate your children may be ''prior'' in nature, do you still have that right? Are your children still "Your Children"? Or have you ''cursed'' your children through your [[Covetous Practices]]? Do your children have another [[Father]] now?


'''Call no man Father'''<Br>
'''Call no man Father'''<Br>
Line 91: Line 28:
==Footnotes==
==Footnotes==
<references />
<references />
[[Category:Articles]]

Latest revision as of 17:29, 10 April 2023

If Parents have a prior right that comes from the Natural Law and is inalienable can those rights be terminated or undermined by the parent's actions or failure to act? The ancient right of the parents was based on a natural parental contract that occurs through acceptance and performance but the right of the state comes when it takes on the responsibilities of the natural father to protect and provide for his children or depends on the covetous practices of the benefactors of the world and the fathers of the earth who use force to provide benefits.
Audio 1 Audio 2 from 2015
Audio 3 revisiting parental rights from 2020

Parents have a prior right

There was a story on the Network of a large-scale operation at the Twelve Tribes Community in Germany where the Police came in and took all the children!

German Children Services has not been limited by court oversight since the days of Hitler's youth movement.

Germany has been cited for human rights violations for years because of the abuses of their Children's Service. Can this happen in other countries?

Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, from 2009 to 2015, prosecuted a German family looking for asylum in America from being arrested for homeschooling in Germany.

The details of Attorney-General Holder’s arguments in the brief for Romeike v. Holder seem contradictory to Human rights as defined by Article 26. Section 3. of the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (UDHR).

According to Holder, parents have no fundamental right to home-educate their children.

“[Holder’s office] argued that there was no violation of anyone's protected rights in a law that entirely bans homeschooling. There would only be a problem if Germany banned homeschooling for some but permitted it for others."[1]

  • "There are two major portions of constitutional rights of citizens—fundamental liberties and equal protection. The U.S. Attorney General has said this about homeschooling. There is no fundamental liberty to homeschool. So long as a government bans homeschooling broadly and equally, there is no violation of your rights. This is a view which gives some acknowledgement to the principle of equal protection but which entirely jettisons the concept of fundamental liberties."[2]

“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are considered to be unalienable right[3] or fundamental rights endowed on every human being by his or her Creator, and are often referred to as “natural rights.” If a right is endowed by God through nature then it would be a right subject to the Natural law and not the whims of Mr. Holder or the governments of men because it is a "prior right".

Article 26. of the UDHR


A prior right would certainly be a more fundamental right and likely would be classified as a natural right.

The UDHR list numerous rights that are called Human. Human rights are governed by Human Events and therefore are not fundamental but the result of what humans do. So a prior right to Human action would be fundamental.

If we read all of Article 26. we see:

Article 26.

  1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
  2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
  3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.


"fundamental liberties and equal protection"

Rights always have a correlative obligation or duty.

The UDHR makes mention that all... all nations ... shall strive ... by progressive measures... to secure their universal and effective ... observance.... among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

That is to say, "Member States" will secure the obedience of all peoples and nations effectively submitted under their jurisdiction through progressive socialism.

Another way of saying the same thing is by offering people equal protection from want of education or "life, liberty and security of person"[4] or "right to social security"[5] etc..

  • “Protection draws to it subjection; subjection protection.” Coke, Litt.65.

Progressive socialists will promise people security, education and liberty but they will deliver all peoples and nations into the bondage of debt.

  • 2 Peter 2:19-22 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

And they do all this through the covetous means of socialism.

  • 2 Peter 2:3 ¶ And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

If a Human Being has a right to free education someone has an obligation to provide that education. It would be assumed that the parents have the prior obligation of nurturing their progeny. That obligation is imposed by nature itself and right reason according to the law of nature. Since life was bestowed upon a child by their parents the right to life and a full life begins with the parent. If that life is not provided by the parents then the obligation may fall to another by nature or by Human Events.

If the parents have already obligated themselves to the state, asking the state to provide them with benefits to protect the parent and the child, a right to their children may be claimed by the state because of prior or present benefits to the parents and even the Child. If those benefits are provided by the creation of debt both the parents and the child may become a surety for debt.

If parents were independent of government benefits and even excluded from those benefits, then the state could not claim a fundamental or legal right to take their children or regulate their children's education.

“Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself.”[6]

Emperor Titus son of Emperor Vespasian like the Caesars before them were the Patronus of Rome and the Conscripted fathers were Men called father upon the earth. They and men like Saturninus would seal the Christian conflict.

While your right to educate your children may be prior in nature, do you still have that right?

Are your children still "Your Children"?

Or have you cursed your children through your Covetous Practices?

Do your children have another Father now?


Call no man Father
What was Christ trying to tell us about fathers on the earth?
http://www.hisholychurch.org/sermon/fatherabba.php


The Liberty to Tax
A Patrimonial Right of the Father
http://www.hisholychurch.org/news/articles/libertytax.php

Call no man on earth Father PDF
Why did Jesus tell us not to call any man on earth Father?
5" X 8 1/2" Pamphlets
http://www.hisholychurch.org/study/bklt/father.pdf Printable
8 1/2"X 11" Print Friendly
http://www.hisholychurch.org/study/bklt/fatherst.pdf Standard

A Father’s offer of the book Thy Kingdom Comes
http://www.hisholychurch.org/media/books/TKC/TKCf6-4TheOffer.php

One Father of the book Thy Kingdom Comes
http://www.hisholychurch.org/media/books/TKC/TKCi9-3OurFather.php

Abraham the Family Man
Who is your Father?
http://www.hisholychurch.org/study/history/4abramfam.php

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Atty General Holder Argues Parents Have No Right to Educate their Children February 18, 2013, by Daniel Greenfield
  2. ↑ Eric Holder: Banning Homeschooling Doesn’t Violate Fundamental Rights Shane Vander Hart February 12, 2013 - http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2013/02/eric-holder-banning-homeschooling-doesnt-violate-fundamental-rights/
  3. ↑ The final version of the Declaration uses the word "unalienable." ... The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away.
  4. ↑ Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
  5. ↑ Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
  6. ↑ Cassante ratione legis cessat, et ipsa lex.4 Coke, 38; 7 id. 69; Coke, Litt. 70 b. 122 a; Broom, Max. 3d Lond. ed. 151, 152; 4 Rep. 38; 13 East, 348; 4 Bingh. n.c. 388.
Retrieved from "http://preparingyou.com/wiki/index.php?title=Parents_have_a_prior_right&oldid=53488"