It takes a village (to corrupt a child)
By Alisa Craddock
web posted November 14, 2005
One is struck by the absurdity of yet another outrageous ruling by California’s infamous activist court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, that "There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children...Parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students." In other words, the state may teach your children what is contrary to your morals and you will have nothing to say about it.
The lawsuit that resulted in this ruling was brought by parents who objected to sexually explicit questions on a survey their children were to take. Their parents had to sign a permission letter for their children to participate But the survey questionnaire, as described to the parents in the letter indicated that the objective of the survey was to gather information on early childhood trauma. There was nothing in the letter that indicated the questions on the survey would be of a sexual nature, much less as explicit as they turned out to be. (There was some indication that the survey questions might make the children uncomfortable, and that the researcher administering the questionnaire would assist in locating a therapist for "further psychological help, if necessary", but given the context, it appeared to refer to children who had already experienced early childhood trauma, not thatthe trauma might result from the survey.) The offending portion of the questionnaire encompassed the following:
First, third and fifth graders surveyed were instructed to rate the following activities according to how often they experienced them, felt them, or thought about them.
- Touching my private parts too much.
- Thinking about having sex.
- Thinking about touching other people's private parts.
- Thinking about sex when I don't want to.
- Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside.
- Not trusting people because they might want sex.
- Getting scared or upset when I think about sex.
- Having sex feelings in my body.
- Can't stop thinking about sex.
- Getting upset when people talk about sex.
Justice Reinhardt, in his opinion, noted that the objective of the survey was to determine "psychological barriers to learning". Well, one psychological barrier to learning might be the early childhood trauma of being exposed compulsorily to sexually explicit and intrusive questionnaires at an age when some are still sucking their thumbs and most think the other sex has cooties. The innocence and natural modesty of children is thus assaulted and broken down, and one has to ask, why subject innocent little children to such invasive, degrading questions? If the same questions were asked of a woman by her employer, she would have grounds to sue for sexual harassment, no matter what the context, especially if she were sandbagged the way these children and their parents were. A child doesn’t have the maturity or the power to defend itself against such invasions of privacy, modesty and dignity. That’s why children need parents to teach and protect them. It’s a no-brainer for most people. But now the courts have said you may not protect your child from sexual indoctrination, you may not opt your children out of school programs that teach about sex, contraception, homosexuality, abortion, or anything else the state decides it should teach kids.
This sort of tactic is not uncommon these days in California. Neither is it in Massachusetts. At the Estabrook School in Lexington, Massachusetts kindergarten children were given a "diversity bookbag" that included materials about homosexuality. David Parker, the child’s father, was upset that the school had not asked for or obtained his permission to teach his little boy about homosexuality, as was required by law. He wasn’t opposed to the program—just not in kindergarten. He asked for and was granted a meeting with school officials who refused to agree to his request that he be notified in advance about any future programs or lessons on homosexuality so that his child could opt-out. The school maintained that the law didn’t apply here because they weren’t teaching about sex specifically. But Brian Camenker, of the Article 8 Alliance, who is responsible for the current law on the books in Massachusetts, says that this is precisely the kind of situation the law was designed for—to protect parental authority to refuse indoctrination of their kids. Mr. Parker was subsequently arrested because he refused to leave without that guarantee from the school. A restraining order was placed against him, barring him from school grounds, which meant he could not even drop off or pick up his child at school.
Many of us can remember a time when the welfare of children in this country was its top priority, when rearing children to be honest, responsible, charitable and morally upright citizens was the ideal we sought, and the schools and parents were partners in that proud duty. This most recent court ruling flies in the face of reason. Children have become mere pawns in the so-called "culture war." The parents have no right to protect their children’s privacy or purity, but according to the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals, the "right to privacy" does include the right of minor children to sexual intimacy, and to have an abortion without their parents’ knowledge. No parents could possibly think this was in their child’s best interest, except perhaps Margaret Sanger, Alfred Kinsey, or Jim’s two Dads. Kinsey, if you’re not familiar with him, is the so-called sex researcher who asserted that children were little sexual beings from birth and should begin having sexual experiences as early as possible, paving the way for what is called in "value-neutral" psychological parlance, "intergenerational intimacy" or "adult-child sex". Kinsey has been denounced overwhelmingly by the authentic practitioners of mental health sciences, but he is the darling of those who wish to perpetrate the "new morality". He is their Golden Calf, so to speak, still held up as the God of the sexual liberationists, and was recently canonized by the Hollywood elites in a film about him and his "research".
Nevertheless, the education arm of the Kinsey Institute, SIECUS (the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States) together with Planned Parenthood Federation of America (of which Margaret Sanger was the founder, and which shares a very similar creed) and the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), have their hands all over your children’s "sex education", each promoting their own agenda, apparently with the blessing of the NEA and the U.S. Government Dept. of Education, to develop children’s sexuality "in the same way as the child’s inborn human capacity to talk or to walk, and [ensuring] that [the parents’] role should relate only to teaching the child the appropriateness of privacy, place and person—in a word, socialization." (SIECUS Report, May-July 1983). Apparently, the latter part of that has been abandoned as well.
The evidence over the last few years indicates that getting children sexually active at a younger and younger age is, in fact, the long-range objective that is being gradually enacted. Among President Clinton’s infamous executive orders with which he frequently "saved the constitution" Executive Order 13107 – The Implementation of Human Rights Treaties was signed on our behalf to bring us into compliance with UN objectives. The flaw in our legal system of setting legal "precedents" and protecting "settled law" is being used to incrementally tear down our Judeo-Christian moral code to form it to one that is more in keeping with global objectives outlined in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, and other dubious programs and documents. This most recent ruling by the 9 th Circuit Court is, in fact, precisely what the UN has urged governments to do, as outlined by Dr. John Willke, founder of the Life Issues Institute, in his exposé on the United Nations and its agenda back in 2001. He stated that "the U.N… has been encouraging governments to lend legal and financial support to the effort to change long held and wise cultural norms. While traditional cultures regulate sex by shepherding the act toward marriage, the U.N. has promoted consensual sex at any age, with both sexes, in an unlimited manner." [My emphasis].
So now we know what is going on, but there is still the question of ‘why?’ Why does the U.N. promote sexual activity at any age? Why are they trying to undermine and usurp loving parental authority over their children, and why are our courts and schools cooperating in the corruption of our most vulnerable citizens. In a future column, I’ll explore more of the United Nations’ social(ist) agenda, and propose what I believe to be a possible explanation for it. 
Alisa Craddock is a Library Technical Assistant at a state university in Florida, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian. She can be contacted at acrock43_j@yahoo.com
 Printer friendly version |
|