WCC Conference Update; Out of the Great Whore's Mouth is No Parental Rights for the world;
Extra Oil: No Parental Rights Soon
shared by Remnant Doctrine Keepers (RDK) 051311
©copyright 2011 Bonita M Quesinberry 051111
World Council of Churches – News: Update from last week's Sabbath Extra Oil and received one this Sabbath, which will be reproduced in next week's Oil:
PEACE CONVOCATION OPENS WITH STRONG CALLS FROM GLOBAL VOICES
For immediate release: 19 May 2011
—— The International Ecumenical Peace Convocation (IEPC) formally opened on
Wednesday in Kingston, Jamaica, as theologians, faith leaders and the prime minister of Jamaica welcomed some 1,000 participants from more than 100 countries.
—— Keynote speaker Canon Dr Paul Oestreicher, a globally recognized peace activist, called for churches across all spiritual traditions to strengthen their position on peace, even while recognizing their own history of declaring war in the name of God.
—— “Under the sign of the cross, Christian nations conquered other nations,” he said. “In the crusades, they massacred the children of Islam. That has not been forgotten. We, just like our brothers and sisters in Islam, regard those who die in battle as certain of a place in heaven.”
—— Oestreicher acknowledged that the path to peace is obstructed by political complexities.
—— “At the moment war, once it starts, is held by most of our neighbors to be honorable, probably necessary, and sometimes noble. Language disguises the bloody, cruel reality,” he said.
—— The Rev. Dr Olav Fykse Tveit, general secretary of the World Council of Churches (WCC), moderated the convocation’s opening session, which included an opening prayer service, greetings, and stories of churches seeking peace and reconciliation.
—— “I believe that God has called us here from many parts of the world to carry from your countries your experiences,” he said. “Many of you carry with you the realities of the injustice of violence.”
—— Those from the Caribbean region and Jamaica welcomed IEPC participants, many of whom were visiting Jamaica for the first time. Jamaican Prime Minister Bruce Golding acknowledged his own country's history of violence and, at the same time, its ingenuity and resilience in coping over the decades.
—— “I genuinely believe that we were all created by the same God,” he said. “The challenge is: how can we transform our discussion into a shared set of values that are universally accepted and sustained.”
—— Theologians began asking the questions that IEPC participants will wrestle with during the next week. Archbishop Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the department of external church relations of the Russian Orthodox Church, spoke of Christians and others across the globe who are daily exposed to humiliation and threats.
—— “The principle question we have to answer is what we as Christians can do together in the face of growing violence, aggression, exploitation and terror,” he said.
—— The IEPC comes at the end of a Decade to Overcome Violence, an initiative of the WCC that strove to strengthen existing efforts and networks for preventing and overcoming violence, as well as inspire the creation of new ones.
—— The Rev. Dr Margot Kaessmann, a Lutheran theologian and minister in the Evangelical Church of Germany, said that IEPC participants are part of a long and complex journey that only begins this week.
—— “Our economies profit from violence and war that we lament,” she said. “Religion plays a vital role with regard to peace-making and overcoming violence. It is time that religion refuses to be misused by pouring oil into the fire of war and hatred.”
—— The opening plenary was preceded by an opening worship and prayer service filled with song and prayers for peace. The events of the afternoon were closed with a prayer from Jamaican Archbishop Donald Reece of the Roman Catholic Church.
—— Both events were broadcast live around the world through a video stream available through the IEPC website www.overcomingviolence.org (Link: http://www.oikoumene.org/index.php?RDCT=a9a041a49a7e2380ab34 ). The morning
plenary throughout the remainder of the IEPC will also be broadcast live through a video stream from 10:30 am – 12:30 pm local time (GMT – 5 hours).
—— IEPC website (Link: http://www.oikoumene.org/index.php?RDCT=88bb003c0e7e98986641 )
Text of the speeches at the opening plenary (Link:
The IEPC in social media (Link:
High resolution photos of the event may be requested free of charge via photos.oikoumene.org (Link:
—— The World Council of Churches promotes Christian unity in faith, witness and service for a just and peaceful world. An ecumenical fellowship of churches founded in 1948, today the WCC brings together 349 Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican and other churches (Islam, pagan, etc) representing more than 560 million Christians in over 110 countries, and works cooperatively with the Roman Catholic Church. The WCC general secretary is Rev. Dr Olav Fykse Tveit, from the [Lutheran] Church of Norway. Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland.
RDK Note: Pope John Paul II called to (wanted) our children and young adults: on his deathbed, thousands of young people gathered in the Vatican square. The Pope sent a message to them by the Cardinal caring for him, as reported last year by RDK, "I called and you have come." The Vatican is behind this and is determined to gain total control of the world's children. We have advised that the moment our children enter public school instantly they become wards of the State; albeit, we still retained most parental rights. That is about to change according to Parental Rights Org. (PRO). The PRO quote below is verbatim, with exception of noted summarized parts for the sake of brevity, the intent remaining as intended:
Parental Rights, presented by the Parental Rights Organization, will be no rights at all.
—— "The right of parents to bring up and education of their children has been upheld for centuries. Today those rights are coming under assault from federal judges who deny or refuse them. Further danger to the child-parent relationship is international law seeking to undermine parental roles also is coming. Together, these threats converge to a "perfect storm" looming over child-parent relationships. (summary)
—— "In the early 1980s, a landmark parental rights case reached the Washington State Supreme Court; a case involving 13-yo Sheila Marie Sumey, whose parents were alarmed when they found evidence of her partaking in illegal drug doings and increasing sexual acts. They immediately grounded Sheila's from negative influences. (summary)
—— "When Sheila went to school counselors about her parent's actions, she was told she could be liberated from her parents due to "conflict between parent and child." Sheila notified Child Protective Services (CPS) was subsequently removed from her home and placed in foster care. (summary)
—— "Her parents challenged social workers in court. They lost. Even though the judge found Sheila's parents had enforced reasonable rules in a proper manner, the State law still gave CPS authority to split the Sumey family and take Sheila away." (summary) 1
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT: "Parental rights are under U.S. attack with the first threat originating in the federal court system. As this story shows, a growing disregard for parental rights is spreading in our nation's courts. (summary)
—— "Across the country, judges are beginning to deny the vital role of parents in their children's lives, instead inserting government into the "parental" role. This dangerous claim is leading to the severance of child-parent relationships in numerous instances—removals causing unnecessary pain to children and parents.
—— "A Washington State 13-year-old boy was removed from his parents after he complained to school counselors that his parents took him to church too often. His school counselors encouraged him to call Child Protective Services, which led to his removal and placement in foster care. It was only after the parents agreed to a judge's decree of less frequent church attendance that they were able to get their son." 2 (summary) HANGING BY A THREAD: "Not all judges hold a low view of parental rights. Some, like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, believe parental rights are "inalienable rights" of Americans detailed in the Declaration of Independence but increasingly they are finding it difficult to rule in favor of parental rights when it is not explicitly included in the language of the Constitution. (summary)
—— "Troxel vs. Granville: the last major parental rights case heard by the Supreme Court, Scalia himself denied parental rights the status of an enforceable constitutional right. Other federal court judges are following in his footsteps, citing a belief that federal courts can protect no right unless explicitly stated in the Constitution. (summary)
—— "The declining support of parental rights found on federal levels has opened the door to a blatant disregard of parental rights within our nation's lower courts. Parental rights violations are increasing across the country as courts exchange parental rights for government control of U.S. children. The right of parents to raise and education their children hangs by a thread. (summary)
—— "A West Virginia mother was shocked when a circuit judge and a family court judge ordered her to share custody of her 4-year-old daughter with two of her babysitters. Referring to the sitters as "psychological co-parents," the justices awarded full custody to them, only permitting the mother to visit her daughter four times a week at McDonalds. Eventually she was granted primary custody but forced to continue to share her daughter with the sitters. When her case finally reached West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in October 2007, the stressed mother was relieved to be granted full custody of her daughter. (summary)
—— "In their October 25 opinion Supreme Court justices wrote they were "deeply troubled by the disregard" for the mother's rights. One justice referred her right as a “paramount world right." Chief Justice Robin Davis summed up the case in a simple question, "Why does a natural parent have to prove fitness when she has never been found unfit?'" 3 (summary)
THE THREAT FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW: "The precarious state of parental rights in our nation is reason for serious concern. With cases like these filling courts, every parent should be concerned about protecting and preserving their rights. But another storm is rapidly forming. International law seeks to empower the government to intrude upon the child-parent relationship is an increasing threat. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), a seemingly harmless treaty with dangerous implications for U.S. families is nearing possible U.S. ratification. (summary)
—— "If this treaty becomes binding upon our country, the government will have the power to intrude in a child's life by its definition of "the best interests of the child." The scenarios that could and are occurring as a result of this perilous notion both manifold and frightening. (summary)
—— "Under UNCRC, instead of due process, government agencies would have the power to override your parental choices at their whim because they determine what is in "the best interest of the child." In essence, UNCRC applies legal status of abusive parents to all parents. This means the burden of proof falls on parents to prove to the State they are good parents—it should fall on the State to prove their investigation is not without cause." (summary)
A SHELTER IN THE STORM: "There is only one solution to this imminent storm: a constitutional amendment places current Supreme Court doctrine protecting parental rights into explicit language of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment will shelter the child-parent relationship from the coming storm, ensuring parents have the right to raise and educate their children. (summary)
—— "No government, regardless of good intentions, can replace a parent's love and nurture in the child's life. Parents care, not because their children are "wards" for whom they are responsible. Parents are willing to face danger, sacrifice, hardship and heartache to ensure the best for their kids. (summary)
—— "Learn about protecting parental rights through a constitutional amendment, and join the campaign now. We must not wait until it’s too late. Take the time to sign the petition to protect parental rights today." (summary)
NOTES: "1. In Re: Sumey, 94 Wn. 2d 757, 621 P. 2d 108 (1980)
"2. This was not a reported decision and personal names are withheld in such cases as a matter of course. Our source for this information was Michael Farris, J.D., who advised the parents relative to this case.
"3. In Re: Visitation and Custody of Senturi N.S.V., 221 W.Va. 159, 652 S.E. 2d 490 (2007)
Summary of PROPOSED PARENTAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION:
—— "SECTION 1: "The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right."
—— SECTION 2: "Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served."
—— SECTION 3: "No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article."
Ten things you need to know about the structure of the CRC: "It is a treaty that creates binding rules of law. It is no mere statement of altruism.1. Its effect would be binding on U.S. families, courts and policy-makers.2. Children of other nations would not be impacted or helped in any direct way by our ratification.3.
—— "The CRC would automatically override almost all U.S. laws on children and families due the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause in Article VI.4. CRC has some elements that are self-executing, but others will require employing legislation. Federal courts would have the power to determine which provisions are self-executing.5. The courts would have the power to directly enforce provisions that are self-executing.6. Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty. This would constitute the most massive shift of power from states to the federal government in U.S. history.7. (summary)
—— "A committee of 18 experts from other nations, in Geneva, has authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty entitled to binding weight in U.S. courts and legislatures. This effectively transfers authority for all these policies to this foreign committee.8. (summary)
—— "Under international law, the treaty overrides our Constitution.9. Reservations, declarations or understandings intended to modify our duty to comply with will be void if determined inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty." 10. (summary)
Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC: "Children would have the ability to choose their own religion but parents would have life by grounding her the authority to give their children advice about religion.13. The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.14. (summary)
—— "A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him/her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which a child disagreed.15. According to existing analysis, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than on children’s welfare.16. Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.17. (summary)
—— "Christian schools refusing to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach Christianity as the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.18. Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held as out of compliance with CRC.19. Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.20. (summary)
—— "Parents would no longer administer reasonable spankings of their children.11. A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison." 12. (summary)
NOTES: "Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 26 “Pacta sunt servanda”:
“Every treaty in force is binding on the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.”
—— "United States Constitution, Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the U.S. made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the U.S., shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” (summary)
—— "UNICEF “Convention on the Rights of the Child” says: “the Convention is a universally agreed set of non-negotiable standards and obligations.” Vienna Convention Article 26 (supra);
—— "U.S. Supreme Court, Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 (1888): “By the Constitution of the U.S., a treaty and a statute are placed on the same footing, and if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control, provided the stipulation of the treaty on the subject is self-executing.” (summary)
—— "Vienna Convention (supra) and Article 2 (g): “‘party’ means a State which has consented to the treaty and for which the treaty is in force” United States Constitution, Article VI (supra, Note 1) (summary)
—— "Arlene Bowers Andrews, Implementing the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, 171 (Greenwood Publishing Group 1999): “The Convention is generally regarded as two classes of rights for purposes of self-execution, one class is self-executing and one is not self-executing." (summary)
—— "U.S. Supreme Court, Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. ___ (2008), at 170 L.Ed. 2d 190, 219, “Whether the treaties underlying a judgment are self-executing so judgment is directly enforceable as domestic law in courts is a matter for Court to decide.” (summary)
—— "Inter-Agency Standing Committee Reference Group on Humanitarian Action and Human Rights, Frequently Asked Questions on International Humanitarian, Human Rights, and Refugee Law, (2002: “Human rights law contains provisions obliging states to implement its rules, whether immediately or progressively. States must adopt a variety of legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures that may be necessary to give effect to the rights provided for in various treaties. It includes providing for a remedy before domestic courts for violations of specific rights and ensuring the remedy is effective. The fact a state has federal or devolved system of government does not affect a state's obligation to implement human rights law.” (summary)
—— "U.S. Supreme Court, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957): “To the extent the U.S can validly make treaties, people and the States have delegated their power to the National Government and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier.” (summary)
—— "United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 43 (amended) and 44. Vienna Convention, Article 27: “ A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty.” (summary)
—— "Vienna Convention, Article 19, also Louis Henkin, U.S. Ratification of Human Rights Conventions: The Ghost of Senator Bricker, The American Journal of International Law, Vol 89 No 2, 343-344 (Apr. 1995): “Reservations designed to reject any obligation to rise above existing law and practice are of dubious propriety: if states generally entered such reservations, the convention would be futile. The object and purpose of human rights conventions, it would seem, are to promote respect for human rights by having countries—mutually—assume legal obligations to respect and ensure recognized rights in accordance with international standards. Even friends of the U.S. have objected that its reservations are incompatible with that object and purpose and are invalid . . . By adhering to human rights conventions subject to these reservations, the U.S., it is charged, pretends international obligations but undertakes nothing.” (summary)
—— "United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37(a): “No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading conduct or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age” (summary)
—— "United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 8 (2006): The right of a child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment (arts. 19; 28, para. 2; and 37, inter alia), CRC/C/GC/8, (2006): “The Committee is issuing this general comment to highlight obligation of all State parties to move quickly to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment…. Addressing widespread acceptance or tolerance of corporal punishment of children and eliminating it, in the family, schools and other settings, is … an obligation of State parties under the Convention.” (summary)
—— "United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37(a), (supra) The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Guide for Children and Young People (April 2008), “You have the right to choose your own religion and beliefs. Your parents should help you think about this.” (summary)
—— "Geraldine Van Bueren, International Rights of the Child, Section B, University of London, 29-30 (2006): “Unlike earlier treaties, Convention on Rights of the Child does not include provision allowing for parents to have their children educated in conformity with their parents’ beliefs. In addition, the child’s right to freedom of expression and the right of parents to initially give direction, and later only guidance, strengthens argument that children are entitled to join in decisions so their education conforms to convictions. The second question is whether a child has right to choose a religion. (summary)
—— "Under Convention on Rights of the Child, parents do have right to provide control to the child. Such parental power, however, is subject to two restraints: First, such control should take into account evolving capacities of the child, as expressly required by the Convention. (summary)
—— "Second, the direction should not be so unyielding that it equals coercion. It can be argued that the right to freedom of religion in Convention on Rights of the Child ought to be read together with article 12 which gives the child right to express his own views in the choice of religion." (summary)
—— "United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 3(1): “In all actions about children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” (summary)
—— "Geraldine Van Bueren, International Rights of the Child, Section D, University of London, 46 (2006): “Best interests provides decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child's or the parents', providing it is based on considerations of the best interests of the child. Thus, the Convention challenges the concept family life is always in the best interests of children and parents are always capable of deciding what is best for children.” (summary)
—— "United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 12(1): “State parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.” (summary)
—— "Inter-Agency Standing Committee Reference Group: “Human rights law contains provisions obliging states to implement its rules, whether immediately or progressively. States must adopt a variety of legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures that may be necessary to give effect to the rights provided for in various treaties. It includes providing for a remedy before domestic courts for violations of specific rights and ensuring the remedy is effective.” (summary)
—— "Geraldine Van Bueren, International Rights of the Child, Section D, 137: “State parties are obliged to ‘assure’ children who are capable of forming views the rights to express those views ‘in all matter affecting the child’ and to give those views’ due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child’. By incorporating a reference to ‘all matters affecting the child’ there is no longer a traditional area of exclusive parental or family decision making.” (summary)
—— "ibid., at 36: “[T]he United Nations Committee on Rights of the Child, criticized Egypt and Indonesia on the proportion of their budget spent on defense, as compared to the proportion spent on children’s social expenditure."
—— "The Committee also criticized Austria, Australia, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and others failing to spend enough tax dollars on social welfare for children: Paragraph 46, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Austria, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 38th sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.251 (2005).
—— "Paragraph 17 and 18, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Australia, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 40th sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.268 (2005).
—— "Paragraphs 18 and 19, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Denmark, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 40th sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/DNK/CO/3 (2005).
—— "Paragraph 10, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 31st sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.188(2002).
—— "United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child, Article 31(1): “States Parties recognize right of the child to rest and leisure, to play and recreation appropriate to the child's age and to participate freely in cultural life and arts.” (summary)
—— "American Bar Association, Center on Children and the Law: Children's Rights in America: UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Compared with United States Law, p. 182.
—— "Paragraph 52, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Ireland, Committee on Rights of the Child, 43rd sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/IRL/CO/2 (2006): “While noting social, personal and health education is in the curricula of secondary schools, the Committee is concerned adolescents have insufficient access to necessary information on reproductive health. The education is optional and parents can exempt their children.” (summary)
—— "Paragraph 14, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 8th sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.34 (1995).
—— "Katie Hatziavramidis, Parental Involvement Laws for Abortion in the U.S. and the U.N's Conventions on Rights of the Child: Can International Law Secure Right to Choose for Minors?, 16 Tex. J. Women & L. 185, 202-203 (Spring 2007): “The unmistakable trend in the U.S. is to consistently increase anti-choice legislation, particularly with respect to minors. Ratification of the U.N. Convention on Rights of the Child by the U.S. holds a possibility of assisting minors seek abortions without parental Interference. [*203] The Convention may offer the best hope for securing adolescent reproductive freedoms on a global level. If enough diplomatic pressure were exerted on the U.S. to compel it to ratify the treaty, CRC could provide significant improvements in the outlook for reproductive freedom for minors.” (summary)
—— "Paragraph 3, Concluding Observations of Committee on Rights of the Child: Columbia, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 42nd sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/COL/CO/3 (2006): “The Committee notes with appreciation…decisions of the Constitutional Court on…the partial decriminalization of abortion.” (summary)
—— "Para. 55, Concluding Observations of Committee on Rights of the Child: Chile, Committee on Rights of the Child, 44th session, U.N. Document CRC/C/CHL/CO/3 (2007): “The Committee is concerned over the high rate of teenage pregnancies, the criminalization of terminating pregnancies in all circumstances.'" (summary)
The end is fast coming and far too many are not prepared. Dear Remnant, be strong to the end, harming no one and fearing no person, have no need to defend Truth, do not debate or argue God's Word; for those who argue and debate are determined that you accept lies thus die. Know that the worst will last an exceedingly short time, then Jesus will be in the clouds calling our names to take us up and escort us to the safe haven of heaven. To all parents, do not do as the above laws demand; raise your children as God says, not sparing the rod when your kids rebel against God by violating His Law.
Much love and prayers,
Sister BonnieQ, God's Handmaiden
Seventh Seal Library