U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-10-2009, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
4,991 posts, read 7,673,762 times
Reputation: 1755

Advertisements

193 other nations have signed on to this, while Somalia, is the only other country that refused to.
This was under Bushco. Obama said that he will sign a similiar agreement that will protect gays and transgender people. However, I don't know where he stands on this particular one.
I don't think the UN means to say (like some cons are trying to make it to be), well, parents cannot punish their kids from not going to church or I can't ground my kid as I see fit. It's meant to protect kids from severe abuse, which is already on the books at least on local levels anyway.
Or is it one of those "THE UN IS THE BOOGEYMAN!" talking points from the cons, that make them against it, based on UN involvement?

ConstitutionParty.com Article: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights (http://www.constitutionparty.com/news_print.php?aid=874 - broken link)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-20-2009, 09:44 AM
 
1 posts, read 5,583 times
Reputation: 17
Simple: we as parents don't want the United Nations telling us how to raise our children. We don't want someone from another culture and/or religion telling us what religious values we must observe (no, my children do NOT have the right to decide what religion they may be brought up in, although I have no control over them after they reach their majority), what forms of discipline I may use, or what values I incull in them. I want them educated to the values of my family.

Furthermore, I do not trust the United Nations - whose member states are often hostile to my own country - to use this as a method of subverting my nation's values and bringing down my people. The United Nations is not an impartial world government, all wise and all knowing. It is made up of representatives of governments, each with a different culture, many of which are led by dictators whose only desire is to remain in power. To surrender my fundamental right to bring up my children as I see fit is to destroy my own culture.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2009, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,248 posts, read 22,446,977 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul of Alexandria View Post
Simple: we as parents don't want the United Nations telling us how to raise our children. We don't want someone from another culture and/or religion telling us what religious values we must observe (no, my children do NOT have the right to decide what religion they may be brought up in, although I have no control over them after they reach their majority), what forms of discipline I may use, or what values I incull in them. I want them educated to the values of my family.

Furthermore, I do not trust the United Nations - whose member states are often hostile to my own country - to use this as a method of subverting my nation's values and bringing down my people. The United Nations is not an impartial world government, all wise and all knowing. It is made up of representatives of governments, each with a different culture, many of which are led by dictators whose only desire is to remain in power. To surrender my fundamental right to bring up my children as I see fit is to destroy my own culture.
There is no such "right". Never has been. I do not have an opinion on the UN thing because I have not read it but it seems that there are lots of folks about that think children are their "property" to do with as they please. There is no such right and the government has not only an interest but an obligation to step in when children are not being raised in a correct and productive manner.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2009, 10:19 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,556 posts, read 20,188,634 times
Reputation: 2508
Who IS responsible for the child?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2009, 10:25 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,876 posts, read 13,820,204 times
Reputation: 5233
Quote:
Originally Posted by beenhereandthere View Post
193 other nations have signed on to this, while Somalia, is the only other country that refused to.
This was under Bushco. Obama said that he will sign a similiar agreement that will protect gays and transgender people. However, I don't know where he stands on this particular one.
I don't think the UN means to say (like some cons are trying to make it to be), well, parents cannot punish their kids from not going to church or I can't ground my kid as I see fit. It's meant to protect kids from severe abuse, which is already on the books at least on local levels anyway.
Or is it one of those "THE UN IS THE BOOGEYMAN!" talking points from the cons, that make them against it, based on UN involvement?

ConstitutionParty.com Article: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights (http://www.constitutionparty.com/news_print.php?aid=874 - broken link)

from what I read of the treaty, it would make it illegal for a parent to dicipline their child.


I also dont see the UN as a boogyman, but as an idiot. also if the UN came to my home to enforce this treaty, they shall be leaving on my terms.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2009, 10:31 AM
 
1,047 posts, read 2,175,427 times
Reputation: 418
Personally, I wouldn't sign anything the UN had a hand in. When is that organization going to go away.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2009, 10:48 AM
 
Location: I currently exist only in a state of mind. one too complex for geographic location.
4,175 posts, read 5,414,953 times
Reputation: 669
the UN is an absolute joke and we should pull out of it. however, barry is too much of an idiotic coward to do so.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2009, 10:57 AM
 
1,223 posts, read 1,188,819 times
Reputation: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
There is no such "right". Never has been. I do not have an opinion on the UN thing because I have not read it but it seems that there are lots of folks about that think children are their "property" to do with as they please. There is no such right and the government has not only an interest but an obligation to step in when children are not being raised in a correct and productive manner.
So GOVERNMENT is the supreme authority on what is "correct and productive"? Great idea!! Abort the imperfect and let the government raise the rest.
Serious genetic disease, particularly mental illnesses, make their victims incapable of living a normal life. They rob their victims of their reasoning powers and sense of responsibility, reducing their value to the people's community. The unfit proliferate wildly and spread their genetic diseases. This is clear from the average number of children per family.......
  • Healthy families have 2.2 children
  • Families with inherited mental deficiencies have 3.5 children
  • Families with criminal tendencies have 4.9 children.
Hitler Youth Handbook

The link describes your thinking quite well.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2009, 11:00 AM
 
Location: I currently exist only in a state of mind. one too complex for geographic location.
4,175 posts, read 5,414,953 times
Reputation: 669
so if children do not belong to the parents, then you have no problem with a parent letting their child starve to death right? you're logical. I can't wait to starve my child as the child is not my responsibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
There is no such "right". Never has been. I do not have an opinion on the UN thing because I have not read it but it seems that there are lots of folks about that think children are their "property" to do with as they please. There is no such right and the government has not only an interest but an obligation to step in when children are not being raised in a correct and productive manner.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2009, 11:06 AM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 5,266,551 times
Reputation: 3859
Quote:
Originally Posted by beenhereandthere View Post
193 other nations have signed on to this, while Somalia, is the only other country that refused to.
This was under Bushco. Obama said that he will sign a similiar agreement that will protect gays and transgender people. However, I don't know where he stands on this particular one.
I don't think the UN means to say (like some cons are trying to make it to be), well, parents cannot punish their kids from not going to church or I can't ground my kid as I see fit. It's meant to protect kids from severe abuse, which is already on the books at least on local levels anyway.
Or is it one of those "THE UN IS THE BOOGEYMAN!" talking points from the cons, that make them against it, based on UN involvement?
Well, how is it going to protect them? What is the exact mechanism?

Rule of thumb: when the US refuses to sign on to a UN bill or convention, it is because:

(1) the bill in question empowers some unelected foreign official to interfere with the administration of justice in the US -- in other words, erodes national sovereignty; AND/OR

(2) the bill in question defines the key term (in this case, "severe abuse") in an unacceptable way -- by, for example, excluding certain practices deemed "cultural" or politically acceptable, and embraced by other signatories; AND/OR

(3) the bill in question requires the US to comply with onerous (read: expensive) administrative regulations and to expend an unacceptably large amount of money.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top