🚀 go-pugleaf

cddugan@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote:
> 
>         The following exerpted article, by Barry W. Lynn, first appeared
> in the Feb. 1996 issue of _Church & State_.  The "Parental Rights
> Amendment" is on the Nov. 5 Colorado State ballot as "Amendment 17."  The
> Colorado version would add to the state constitution the inalienable right
> "of parents to direct and control the upbringing, education, values and
> discipline of their children."  A Virginia-based group, "Of The People,"
> with ties to the Christian Coalition, and Focus On The Family, has
> supplied nearly 100% of the funding for Colorado's Amendment 17 ballot
> initiative.  They have stated that Colorado is a test case.  If the
> so-called "Parental Rights"/Amendment 17 passes, Of The People plans to
> introduce similar ballot initiatives in and additional 27 states. -cd
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>                 WHAT'S WRONG WITH 'PARENTAL RIGHTS?'
> 
>         Proponents of something called the "Parental Rights Amendment"
> are trying to amend all state constitutions and eventually the [US]
> federal constitution.
>         The proposed amendment states: "The right of parents to direct
> the upbringing and education of their children shall not be infringed."
>         ...What's wrong with this amendment?  On first reading, it
> certainly sounds innocuous.  As a parent, I want my rights... Why the
> fuss, then?
>         The Religious Right insists that public school officials have
> some nefarious scheme for subverting "parental rights," primarily by
> choosing curriculum and other material that are at odds with their moral
> values.  The bottom line of the Parental Rights Amendment is to give
> parents active in Religious Right groups a type of constitutional "trump
> care" to override any decision public schools make that they don't like.
>         How would this work in practice?  The Massachusetts legislature
> gave us one example two years ago when it considered a "parental rights"
> bill that required two weeks' written notice to parents whenever the
> children were to be involved in any teaching or activity deemed
> "controversial."  These were not just the hot button topics of
> homosexuality and abortion, but everything from discussions of values to
> death and marriage.  Worse, if parents did not affirmatively "opt in"
> every time - actually filling out a form noting it would be all right for
> their children to be exposed to these topics - their children were barred
> from participation.
>         Can you imagine the chaos this would spawn, as teachers abandoned
> PTA meetings and course planning to pursue "wayward" parents who hadn't
> even received the permission slip?  (How many parents stumble on last
> month's homework, lunch news, "important notices," - and occasional
> sandwiches - while cleaning out their children's backpacks?)  What would
> actually happen, of course, would be that many teachers would steer clear
> of these subjects so that they wouldn't have to go through the burdensArticle Unavailable