Parents have a prior right: Difference between revisions

From PreparingYou
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 30: Line 30:
If the parents have already obligated themselves to 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 the parents have already obligated themselves to 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 state3 could not claim a fundamental or legal right to take their children or regulate their children's education.
'''Call no man Father'''<Br>
What was Christ trying to tell us about fathers on the earth?<Br>
http://www.hisholychurch.org/sermon/fatherabba.php
'''The Liberty to Tax'''<Br>
A Patrimonial Right of the Father<Br>
http://www.hisholychurch.org/news/articles/libertytax.php
'''Call no man on earth Father''' PDF<Br>
Why did Jesus tell us not to call any man on earth Father?<Br>5" X 8 1/2" Pamphlets<Br>
http://www.hisholychurch.org/study/bklt/father.pdf Printable <Br>8 1/2"X 11" Print Friendly <Br>
http://www.hisholychurch.org/study/bklt/fatherst.pdf Standard
'''A Father’s offer''' of the book Thy Kingdom Comes<Br>
http://www.hisholychurch.org/media/books/TKC/TKCf6-4TheOffer.php
'''One Father''' of the book Thy Kingdom Comes<Br>
http://www.hisholychurch.org/media/books/TKC/TKCi9-3OurFather.php
'''Abraham the Family Man'''<Br>
Who is your Father?<Br>
http://www.hisholychurch.org/study/history/4abramfam.php


==Footnotes==
==Footnotes==
<references />
<references />

Revision as of 16:36, 6 December 2013


The details of Attorney-General Holder’s arguments in the brief for Romeike v. Holder aeem contradictory to Human rights as defined by the Article 26. Section 3. o the 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]

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.

Rights always have a correlative obligation or duty.

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 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 state3 could not claim a fundamental or legal right to take their children or regulate their children's education.

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