United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child (No. 2)

I want to begin our discussion today by asking you some very vital questions: Who owns the family? Who owns the children in this nation? What is the government’s role with respect to our families? May the government legitimately interfere in the affairs of the homes in this nation—even when those homes are not abusing or misusing our children? Do you believe anyone in government—from the president down to the local officials—has any greater knowledge and skill in caring for the children of this nation than their parents do? To whom has God given the responsibility of rearing children—the parents or the government bureaucrats?

I have raised these questions because the United Nations adopted what they have chosen to call The UN convention of the Rights of the Child. One hundred-seventy-six nations, including the Vatican, endorsed and signed the treaty. The United States is one of the few nations which has not ratified the treaty. Radical groups abroad and here in the United States are pressuring president Clinton to send the treaty to the senate for confirmation. So far he has not done so. Will you please write him today and ask him not to send the treaty to the senate? Will you write your senators and plead with them not to ratify this ridiculous treaty?

The UN Convention would remove the rights of parents and teachers to use corporal punishment in the discipline of children. It would require that children be vested with “freedom of expression.” If they want to talk dirty, to blaspheme the name of almighty God and talk back to their parents, there would be nothing the parents could do to stop them. Millions of children and young people already use filthy speech. You could imagine what would happen if the UN Convention were ratified. Under the treaty, children would be guaranteed the “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” Parents might be prohibited from teaching their children about God, as has been true of the Soviet government and many other communist nations. We might be forbidden to teach them moral values without which they could not live successfully in this world. After all, there are no absolute moral values without God and his word—however much the humanists protest to the contrary.

Under the United Nations treaty, all children would have the “right of association.” Can you imagine what that could mean in homes all across America and throughout the world? All of us know, as Paul said, “Evil companionships corrupt good morals” (1 Cor. 15:33). Could not each one of us give dozens or perhaps hundreds of examples of this biblical truth? I have known splendid young people from devout Christian homes who began to associate with children and young people who drank, used other destructive drugs, engaged in sexual encounters, robbed and stole and who became like their companions. I am thinking of a young man with whom I grew up. He was extremely brilliant, but he started running with the wrong crowd. He began to drink, engage in immoral and illegal activities and died at a very early age. My father tried to tell him the direction he was heading, but he did not pay any attention. He thought he could manage his own life without any outside help. A young man bright enough to become an engineer, a doctor and or an astronaut destroyed his life by associating with people who had the moral values of barnyard animals.

My parents were very strict about our associates. We were not allowed to visit in homes where drinking was permitted. We could not attend entertainments in our school where sleazy plays were produced. If we were caught with the wrong crowd, we were punished severely for our disobedience. Incidentally, my elementary teachers and my high school teachers were most about as concerned about our associates as were our parents. Our teachers did not hesitate to inform our parents if they thought we were with the wrong crowd. Our neighbors also reported our behavior to our parents.

What if your teenage son or daughter decided to form friendships with known drug users or alcohol abusers? Since the child must have the freedom of association, you would not be allowed to interfere—maybe not even to object. If your daughter wanted to bring her boyfriend home and sleep with him or go to his home, you would be virtually powerless to stop such ridiculous and immoral behavior. If you cannot see the danger of such a treaty, please give it prayerful thought and use your influence to stop it. We have enough sexual promiscuity, alcohol and drug use in this country. But confusion would reign in every home and in every community in America. Is it possible preachers and other religious leaders might be restricted in what they could say and do? We know that is what many radicals want for our country, but could it become a reality if the UN convention were ratified?

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child would furnish the “right to privacy.” Tragically and inexplicably, the United States Supreme Court used the right of privacy argument to support abortion on demand. The Court ignored the fact that the Constitution does not use the expression, “the right to privacy.” We know that no one can be absolutely guaranteed that right and yet our highest court has told women they may kill their babies because the Constitution guarantees them the right to privacy. If women can kill their babies in the privacy of their own homes or in hospitals, what else may they be able to do in the name of this alleged right? Maybe they could kill the children they have already in their homes because they are too expensive to rear or they are just in the way.

Some states have worked to legislate some limits on abortion. They demand that children notify their parents when they want to have an abortion. But if the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child were ratified, parents would not be able to place any restrictions on abortion or on any other kinds of behavior. Children could do whatever they please and the parents would virtually be helpless in the face of this unrighteous, unreasonable and unbelievable convention.

The United States, as everyone of you knows, is facing a major problem with teenage pregnancies. 1,000,000 unmarried women become pregnant every year. 400,000 of these young women destroy their unborn babies by abortion. Teenage crime has become a national scandal. Thousands of Americans are killed every year by teenage thugs. Millions of dollars worth of property is destroyed by teenagers who have no respect either for human life or for others’ property. In other words, teenage crime has become an epidemic in virtually every community and city in the United States. Those who study crime and delinquency believe we are facing the greatest wave of crime among young people this nation has ever known. These facts ought to be disturbing to every concerned American. But what will it be like if there is no corporal punishment—either in the home or in the school, if young men and women are guaranteed absolute freedom of expression, if children cannot be influenced in their thought, conscience and religion, and if all children are given the right of association—regardless of the nature of those associations? My friends, we are talking about a madhouse—a jungle.

If you want to learn what will happen if the UN convention were adopted by all nations and becomes law in our country, get your history books and read about the ancient Roman Empire. Rome destroyed itself by weakening the home, burdening the people with excessive taxes, practicing the most cruel sports imaginable, including the killing of thousands and thousands of Christians by throwing them in an arena with lions, by promoting every kind of sexual immorality the fertile mind of man could invent. The apostle Paul provides God’s view of ancient Rome in the first century. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lust of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: who changed the glory of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was appropriate. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient: being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them who do them” (Rom. 1:18-32).

Are any of those attitudes and actions possible and even probable if the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child were ratified? Already we are witnessing many of these abominable practices, but what will it be like if the family loses its authority and influence in the lives of our children and young people? Are you aware that most of the provisions of the UN treaty have been tried by a British school teacher by the name of A. S. Neill? Neill believed children should have almost total self-determination. The children were not required to get up in the morning, prepare their lessons, attend classes and even wear clothes. In fact, A. S. Neill would sometimes go to his classes with no clothing on. Oddly enough, some of America’s educators espouse the ridiculous philosophy of A. S. Neill. No wonder America’s schools are in such trouble. The American people are not getting a good return on our investment in our schools. And that, dear friends, is immoral and inexcusable.

When Robert P. Casey was governor of Pennsylvania, he and the legislature succeeded in modifying Roe versus Wade—the United States Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion on demand. Pennsylvania passed the Abortion Control Act. This act required parental consent before an abortion could be performed. It mandated a twenty-four-hour waiting period, informed consent and a ban on “sex-selection” abortions. If the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child were ratified, all of these provisions of Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act would be invalid. At lease 70% of the American people approve of these restrictions on abortion, but that would make no difference. The UN treaty would take precedence over the American people’s wishes and beliefs.

If the UN treaty were adopted by the United States Senate, there is a strong likelihood that the treaty would force our schools to accept a federally prescribed curriculum. Article 29 insists that every child must be prepared for responsible citizenship. That means each person must have “the spirit of understanding, peace, toleration, equity of sexes, and friendship for all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups indigenous origin.” Do you have any idea whose values would be taught? Do you believe your religious convictions would be honored?

The views of radical feminists would almost certainly form a major part of public and private school instruction. Radical feminists, generally speaking, strongly oppose the home as God ordained it. They hate men and denigrate the importance of motherhood. They are almost totally opposed to biblical Christianity and in its place they substitute many facets of the New Age Movement—particularly the return to witchcraft and goddess worship. The feminists would remove all differences between men and women—except anatomical—and make us all exactly alike. If you think I may be exaggerating, bet any of the modern writing of the radical feminists and learn on your own what they are striving to achieve.

The Gay Liberation Front would seek—and probably succeed—to get their ungodly beliefs and practices into our school systems. Already some of our public schools are teaching young people that homosexuality is just as honorable as heterosexuality. In fact, some of them teach that homosexuality is a natural birth control method. It would solve or at lease ameliorate the world population explosion. Textbooks, especially on the university level, already demand that homosexuality be treated on a par with heterosexuality. Some of our universities will discipline a teacher—even a tenured teacher—for speaking out against homosexuality and will dismiss a student who has the strength of his convictions to condemn perverted sex. The Scandinavian countries have been pushing the homosexual agenda for years. If the UN treaty were confirmed by the Senate, churches and individuals who preach Bible doctrine on human sexuality might be persecuted as they were in the ancient Roman empire and in other pagan countries.

Can you imagine what would occur under the UN treaty if any individual or church would have the courage to teach that salvation is possible only through Jesus Christ? What if we were to teach our children that truth? Does the Bible teach this so-called “exclusive view” of New Testament Christianity? Please listen to these verses and then make up your own mind. Peter told the Jews in Jerusalem: “This is the stone which was set at nought by you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:11-12). Does that sound exclusive to you? What about these words from the mouth of Jesus Christ? “I am the way, the truth and the life: no man comes unto the Father but by me (John 14:6). You may or may not agree with these passages, but should the United Nations have veto power over your beliefs and teachings?

This one final statement from the treaty needs to be read: “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities, or legislative bodies, the best interest of the child will be a primary consideration.” I have only one question about this excerpt from the treaty: Who decides what is in the best interest of the child—the parents whom God has given the responsibility for rearing children—or the United Nations which is dominated by people who have not done particularly well at anything?

If you want to put a screeching halt to our nation’s ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, write your United States senators TODAY. Speak to your church or club or family—or all three—about the threat of this ridiculous treaty. Let us do all within our power to stop it before it does any further damage.

Winford Claiborne

The International Gospel Hour

P.O. Box 118

Fayetteville, TN 37334