Parental Rights: God-given and Unalienable? Or Government-granted and Revocable?

Editor's Note: Before you get into Publius Huldah's response, there is a bit of information that is necessary for readers to know. As you recall, Publius Huldah posted an article on the issue of the Parental Rights Amendment and then subsequently we were contacted by Michael Farris' spokesman to see if we might post a response, which we did here. When Mr. Farris' spokesman realized that commenters saw what I saw, namely an attack on Publius Huldah and self-promotion, I received the following email response:

"Several folks on your blog have asked for clarification specific to the issues, and Mr. Farris' response is seen as more of an attack on PH than certainly was intended. Would you be amenable to another response that does not address PH at all, but which goes point-by-point through her concerns?

If you would be willing to consider posting it, I will get to work on securing that for you. I believe it would benefit both of us and your readers for us to be clearer on the issues she has raised.

Thank you for your consideration, and for providing a forum for this discussion. You and I disagree on the PRA, but I hope we will continue to do so agreeably (as is my perception at least. I hope it is yours as well)."

I replied and told him that would be acceptable, but since Mr. Farris is a litigator, perhaps he should have taken this course of action in the first place and told him he would need to wait until Publius Huldah had responded to Mr. Farris' article. I was told by Farris' spokesman it was reasonable and he asked for Publius Huldah's contact information, which I was told not to give out (by the way, anyone can go to her site and contact her through the site). Once contact information was turned down, I then received the following email response:

"I have spoken again with Mike Farris, and we simply cannot continue to engage with someone claiming to be a lawyer but refusing to identify herself or provide verifiable credentials. I understand you are convinced she is a lawyer, but we have only her word for it.

Anonymity and a claim to be a lawyer are incompatible with each other.

If we cannot verify by name that she has a license to practice law, we simply cannot continue this debate in this forum.

I regret that we must ask this. I, like you, was looking forward to the debate. But a request for credentials from the outset is not unreasonable. Mr. Farris' credentials are already on the table.

I hope you will understand."

I'm not going to tell people what to think about this, but I do find that Publius Huldah's credentials were not an issue for Mr. Farris to respond to in the first article nor were they an issue when there was an agreement to follow up with a second response. However, this makes one wonder if you don't provide certain credentials, does Mr. Farris not think it worthy of his time to engage you about this subject? I'll let the reader decide. Without further ado, Publius Huldah's response to Michael Farris.


Our Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it… (2nd para) [emphasis mine]

So! Rights come from God; they are unalienable;
the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us; and when government takes away our God given rights, it's time to "throw off such Government."

That is our Founding Principle.

Let us now compare our Founding Principle with the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It enumerates 30 some "rights," among which are:

Article 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 21 … 3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections …

Article 29 … 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. [all boldface mine]

So! Rights are enumerated; they come from man [constitutions or laws]; governments may do whatever a majority of people want them to do [instead of securing rights God gave us]; and rights may be limited by law & are subject to the will of the United Nations [not God].

Now, let's look at the Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) from the website of and compare it with the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 1


The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.


The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices
within public schools for one's child.


Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.


This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life. [all boldface mine]

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."

So! Under the PRA, parental rights come from the Constitution – not God. They are only "fundamental" rights, not unalienable rights. They are enumerated rights, the extent of which will be decided by federal judges. 2 And these "fundamental" rights may be infringed by law when the government has a good reason for infringing them.

And even though uses the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child to terrorize parents into supporting the PRA; 3 the PRA itself is the repudiation of our Founding Principles that Rights come from God and are unalienable, and that the sole purpose of civil government is to secure the rights GOD gave us; and adoption of the U.N. theory that rights come from the State, will be determined by the State, and are revocable at the will of the State.

Let's turn to Michael Farris' paper posted July 9, 2013 in Freedom Outpost. His paper followed my initial paper where I addressed, Section by Section, the PRA of which Farris is principal author. He is also Executive Director of

1. Mr. Farris' rationale for the PRA: Scalia's Dissent in Troxel v. Granville (2000)

Farris cites Scalia's dissent to support his own perverse theory that unless a right is enumerated in the federal Constitution, judges can't enforce it, and the right can't be protected.

But Farris ignores the majority's holding in Troxel, and misstates the gist of Scalia's dissent. I'll show you.

This case originated in the State of Washington, and involved a State Statute (§26.10.160(3)) addressing visitation rights by persons who were not parents. Two grandparents filed an action under this State Statute wanting increased visitation of their grandchildren. The mother (Granville) was willing to permit some visitation, but not as much as the grandparents wanted.

This State family law case got to the U.S. supreme Court on the ground that the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment was at stake.

And what did the supreme Court say in Troxel v. Granville ?

"…In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children…"

"…We therefore hold that the application of §26.10.160(3) to Granville and her family violated her due process right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her daughters." [all boldface mine]

Do you see? The supreme Court has already "discovered," in Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, a parental right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of children.

Now! In order to understand Scalia's dissent, one must first learn:

  • That the powers of the federal courts are enumerated and strictly defined; and
  • The original intent of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, and how the supreme Court perverted it.

These are explained in detail here: Judicial Abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment: Abortion, Sexual Orientation, & Gay Marriage. In a nutshell, the linked paper shows that federal courts may lawfully hear only cases falling within the categories enumerated at Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution. One of these categories is cases:

"…arising under this Constitution…"

In Federalist Paper No. 80 (2nd para), Alexander Hamilton says that before a case can properly be said to "arise under the Constitution", it must:

"…concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union…" [emphasis added]

So! Does our federal Constitution "expressly contain" provisions about abortion? Homosexual sex? Homosexual marriage? Parental rights? No, it does not.

Since these matters are not delegated to the federal government, they are reserved to the States and The People (10th Amendment). The federal government has no lawful authority over these issues.

Well, then, how did the supreme Court overturn State Statutes criminalizing abortion and homosexual sex, and State Statutes addressing parental rights?

They used the "due process" clause of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment to usurp power over these issues. Section 1 says:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [boldface mine]

Professor Raoul Berger proves in his book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and protect them from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship.

Professor Berger also shows (Ch. 11) that "due process" is a term with a "precise technical import" going back to the Magna Charta. It means that a person's life, liberty or property can't be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial!

Professor Berger stresses that "due process of law" refers only to trials
- to judicial proceedings in courts of justice. It does not involve judicial power to override State Statutes!

Justice Scalia understands this.

And now, you can understand Scalia's dissent. What he actually says is:

  • Parental rights are "unalienable" and come from God (Declaration of Independence). They are among the retained rights of the people (9th Amendment). [Parental rights don't come from the 14th Amendment!]
  • The Declaration of Independence does not delegate powers to federal courts. It is the federal Constitution which delegates powers to federal courts.
  • It is for State Legislators and candidates for that office to argue that the State has no power to interfere with parents' God-given authority over the rearing of their children, and to act accordingly. [The People need to elect State Legislators who understand that the State may not properly infringe God given parental rights.]
  • The federal Constitution does not authorize judges to come up with their own lists of what "rights" people have 4 and use their lists to overturn State statutes. [That is what the supreme Court did when they fabricated "liberty rights" to abortion and homosexual sex, and overturned State Statutes criminalizing these acts.]
  • The federal Constitution does not mention "parental rights" - such cases do not "arise under the Constitution". So federal courts have no "judicial power" over such cases.

In his closing, Scalia warns against turning family law over to the federal government:

"…If we embrace this unenumerated right ... we will be ushering in a new regime of judicially prescribed, and federally prescribed, family law. I have no reason to believe that federal judges will be better at this than state legislatures; and state legislatures have the great advantages of doing harm in a more circumscribed area, of being able to correct their mistakes in a flash, and of being removable by the people." [emphasis mine]

Do you see? "Parental rights" is a state matter; and parents need to replace bad State legislators.

But the PRA delegates power over "parental rights" to the federal government and makes it an enumerated power.

So! When Farris says:

"4. The Parental Rights Amendment does not give the Judiciary legislative power but constrains the judiciary's exercise of its existing power."

His words are false. The PRA transforms what is now a usurped power over parental rights seized by the supreme Court by perverting Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment [the majority opinion in Troxel illustrates this], to an enumerated power of the federal government.

2. The PRA expressly delegates to the federal and State governments power to infringe God-given parental rights!

Mr. Farris asserts that the PRA gives no power to Congress over children because he – the principal author of the PRA – purposefully left out the language which appears in other amendments that "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation".

So! What did Farris put in his PRA? Look at his SECTION 3:

"Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served." [emphasis mine]

The wording assumes the federal and State governments will be making laws "infringing" parental rights! And because of the PRA, such laws will be constitutional! 5

The only issue will be whether such acts of Congress [the Legislative Branch of the federal government] "serve the government's interest." And who will decide? The federal courts [the Judicial Branch of the federal government] will decide.

The same goes for State Statutes and State courts.

Furthermore, Acts of Congress or State Statutes need only recite the boilerplate language that the law "serves the government's interest, etc.," and it will go to the courts clothed with a presumption of correctness.

3. The PRA is not "just like" the Second Amendment

Mr. Farris says the PRA is:

"… just like the Second Amendment in this regard. The Second Amendment gives no level of government the power to regulate guns. (Any such power comes from some other provision of the Constitution [state or federal]). And the Second Amendment is a limitation on the exercise of such powers."


WE THE PEOPLE did not delegate to the federal government power to restrict our arms.

The 2nd Amendment shows that WE THE PEOPLE really meant it when we declined to give the federal government enumerated power to restrict our arms.

So! As shown here, all federal laws and rules of the BATF pertaining to background checks, dealer licensing, banning sawed off shotguns, etc., are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government, and as in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The PRA is not "just like" the 2nd Amendment because the PRA is an express delegation of power over children and parental rights to the federal and State governments!

4. Pen Names

Publius is the pen name used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay when, during 1787 and 1788, they wrote The Federalist Papers to explain the proposed Constitution and induce The People to ratify it.

Huldah is the prophet at 2 Kings 22. The Book of the Law had been lost for a long time. When it was found, it was taken to Huldah who gave guidance about it to the king and his priests.

Do you see? And it's about Our Country – not my personal glory, fame, and fundraising.

My qualifications? My work speaks for itself.

5. Learn the Constitution and understand the PRA? Or put your trust in Farris?

My previous paper is about the PRA and our Constitution. It isn't about Mr. Farris.

But Farris' response is about persons: 429 of his 2,044 words are devoted to his illustrious self; 170 words are spent to disparage Publius Huldah.

I teach the original intent of our Constitution so that our People can become what Alexander Hamilton expected them to be:

"… a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority…" Federalist Paper No. 16 (next to last para)

To that end, I have published some 50 papers proving that original intent, using The Federalist Papers as the best evidence of that original intent. Many are posted here.

We must all do our civic duty and learn our Founding Principles and Constitution so that we can learn to think for ourselves and help restore our Constitutional Republic.

But Farris says you should believe in … him. He says:

"6. Who are you going to believe—a trusted advocate for parental rights or an anonymous blogger?"

He doesn't ask you to learn and think – he asks you to believe … in him.

6. An Alternative Organization: National Home Education Legal Defense (NHELD)

NHELD has been warning for years about the Parental Rights Amendment. NHELD

"…does not believe in blindly following the word of anyone. NHELD … does not believe in just directing families to act in unison on the basis of an opinion that NHELD … has formed on its own. NHELD … believes in an informed, empowered citizenry, who is able to fight for freedom effectively…"

NHELD advises:

"…individuals not to take the word of anyone else about what … legislation says, but to read the text for themselves …"

7. How do Governments "secure" our God given Rights?

Our rights must be "secured" from people & civil governments who seek to take them away.

For an illustration of how the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government enable it to "secure" our God given rights to life, liberty & property, see James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers under the subheading, Our Founding Principles in a Nutshell. The federal government isn't to secure these rights in all ways – just in those ways appropriate to the national government of a Federation of Sovereign States.

The powers reserved by The States and The People enable the States to secure these rights in the ways appropriate to States. States secure our right to life by prosecuting murderers, drunk drivers, quarantining people with infectious deadly diseases, etc. States secure our property rights by prosecuting robbers; by providing courts for recovery for fraud, breach of contract; etc.

Our federal Constitution secures our God given rights by strictly limiting the powers of Congress, the powers of the President, and the powers of the federal courts.

Civil governments are controlled by limiting their powers.

To delegate to the federal government express power to infringe "parental rights" under the pretext of "protecting" such rights is absurd! But that is Farris' argument.

Parents! Justice Scalia gives excellent advice: elect to your State Legislature people who understand that your responsibilities to your children are determined by God alone.

We must stop looking for the magic pill, roll up our sleeves, man up, and fix our own States.


The PRA is a radical transformation of our conception of Rights from being unalienable gifts of God to the UN Model where "rights" are granted by government and revocable at the will of government. This is being sold to you as a means of "protecting" your parental rights! But it transfers power over children to the federal and State governments. You are being told to trust the "experts" and "believe" what they tell you. But if the PRA is ratified, the federal and State governments will have constitutional authority to infringe your "parental rights". And you will have no recourse.


1 Craigers61 pointed out, in his comment to my initial paper, that Section 3 of the PRA is a paraphrase of [Article 29] of the UN [Declaration] in which:

"… all of the rights "given" by the UN earlier in the document can be taken back if any right goes against the UN's "mission." It's a big finger on the chess piece in which the Political power can take back the right granted at any time they deem…

…Also, do you see the other problem here? The STATE grants the right to the parents! … In classical liberalism, the philosophy that founded the USA, all rights are INALEIANBLE! They reside in the human being themselves! They cannot be given, they cannot be taken and they cannot be circumscribed by the STATE..."

2 Bob in Florida
asks Farris:

"But, what you say we must do - pass the Parental Rights Amendment - to defeat the Scalia argument that there is no legal text to cite to allow parents to have rights to direct their children's education, medical care, etc., requires that we do exactly what the writers of the Constitution did not want to do - enumerate each and every right we have.

Their reason was that this would require that we enumerate each and every right and to leave one out would imply we don't have that right. Their chosen approach was to only define the powers given to the government
and all others were reserved to the States or the People. [emphasis mine]

Are you not advocating we do exactly what they didn't want to do - enumerate each and every right?"

3 Congress may lawfully ratify only treaties which address enumerated powers. Since "parental rights" & "children" are not enumerated powers, any ratified treaty addressing such would be a proper object of nullification. But if the PRA is ratified, then these will be enumerated powers, and the Senate will have lawful authority to ratify the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child.

4 It is GOD's prerogative to decide what Rights we have. Not mans'.

5 Un-anonymous blogger Doug Newman pointed out four years ago that:

"…The PRA actually puts a constitutional blessing on federal intrusion into parenting…"

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Print pagePDF pageEmail page



About Publius Huldah
Lawyer, philosopher & logician. Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Passionate about The Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand, & the following: There is no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus. She also writes legal and Constitutional commentary at her site: Publius-Huldah
  • wabby99

    After reading this my money is on Ms. Huldah. I could care less what credentials she has she could certainly defend me in court ANYDAY!!!

  • wabby99

    The comments about Ms. Huldah being CREDENTIALED again speaks for Mr. Farris's arrogance. I will never again have anything to do with his organization and I believe many others are feeling the same way. There are many UNCREDENTIALED scholars in our country and I would stand with them any day before I would stand behind those that carry a banner of titles. Remember folks…….Obama claims to be a Constitutional scholar too and I wouldn't give you two cents for his opinion on anything. Her credentials are not the point. Are her arguments valid arguments? I believe she has a better insight on the true intent of the Constitution than the arrogant, egotistical Mr. Farris.

  • The Blue Tail Gadfly

    Play-Dough's Apology:

    Well thanks to Doodaddio and the aid of all his socks (Vindicator X, Devin_is_Krazy, The Masked Marauder, Bill Tilghman, and Victors Punishment formerly known as Doodaddio), he has managed to turn the comment section into unintelligible drivel with his out of control temper tantrum.

    Whatever his current problem is, I had nothing to do with it; but that isn't stopping him from conducting an old fashion Salem's witch hunt where he is judge, jury, and

    Whoever did do it has to be feeling pretty good with themselves over the reaction they got out of this troll, though I doubt they anticipated this big of one. He played directly into their hands.

    In all of Doodaddio's self-righteousness and lies, the story he doesn't tell is how he and his cohorts spend all their time harassing people and doing what he is accusing me of doing. That is called projecting, and yes he does it all the time.

    Is it any wonder somebody would do this to him?

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander? Well obviously not.

    As he has clearly demonstrated, to anyone that has bothered to read his nonsense, his logic is fallacious and his reasoning is absent in all his unfounded assertions. If I were this diabolical narcissist that he claims I am, I would have to take credit for the success this prank had upon him. Again, I had nothing to do with it because I have learned there are certain people you cannot have a rational argument or
    conversation with so I try to stay away from them altogether.

    Violations of the basic rules or principles on which rational argumentation depends. --Kevin deLaplante, The Critical Thinker Academy, The rules of rational Argumentation.

    Rule #1: You can’t argue with someone who is intentionally trying to mislead or deceive you.

    Rule #2: You can’t argue with someone who is UNWILLING to reason well.

    Rule #3: You can’t argue with someone who is UNABLE to reason well.

    Rule #4: An argument has to give reasons for believing or accepting the conclusion.

    Good advice.

    Doodaddio, excuse me, Victor's Punishment and his fellow RINO trolls have been following and replying to me with personal attacks and false accusations straight out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals for over a year now. So this is nothing new but certainly unexpected at this point in time, but then nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

    I do not ask the readers to believe me, but to believe their own reasoning when witnessing for themselves the actions of a thug with multiple socks throwing reckless accusations around without a care because "he knows". Well excuse me for saying without a doubt, no he doesn't.

    Doodaddio's zeal in persecuting those who he assumes did him wrong speaks volumes of his character and sense of justice.

    All he has provided for evidence of his baseless assertions is his heavily biased opinions.

    In Truth,


    • COMALite J

      I agree with much of what you say here, but please, define “RINO.” I know what the acronym stands for. What I’m asking is how you determine just who is a “real Republican” and who is a “Republican In Name Only.” What are the specific criteria that determine who is which?

  • RonMar

    I am not sure what I have been asked to do here. I believe, however, I was asked to read the Publius Huldah and Michael Farris papers on the Parental Rights Amendment and to 1) take a side, or 2) agree that a third party be brought in to present yet another paper - viewpoint - on the PRA.
    I am not about to do this after 7 p.m. Eastern time on a rainy Sunday evening after a nice dinner, and a busy workday for me as a Christian minister. Christians usually observe the Sabbath and worship on Saturday or Sunday depending on the traditions of the Christian denomination. Thus ministers work on the Sabbath; laypeople do not unless they are on shift work, driving trucks, serving in the military or some such thing.
    This is a complex theological, legal, and societal issue. I am not a lawyer, but I do know how to read, and have been trained in argumentation, theology, presentation of cases, and recognition of and dealing with propaganda as a retired military officer now serving in ministry. Thus, I do have some initial thoughts on the subject and will put them down here now as time, interest and a strong desire to take a nap permit:
    - Huldah, an attorney, presented a nice, well-reasoned and supported argument against the PRA.
    - An attorney for Farris, also an attorney, asked for and got permission for a rebuttal. The rebuttal spent far too much time and effort pumping up Farris' credentials and ad hominem attack on Huldah. Too much of the rebuttal did not make sense and relied on propaganda techniques and petty questioning of Huldah, not Huldah's reasoned arguments.
    - Huldah graciously counted Farris' mentions of himself and criticisms of Huldah - "429 of his 2,044 words are devoted to his illustrious self; 170 words are spent to disparage Publius Huldah."
    - Huldah replied in detail to Farris' arguments for the PRA.
    - Farris' attorney at first proposed another article by a third party his side would arrange, then he declined to go any further based on the premise that Publius Huldah was a pen name not verifiable as an attorney. Information on Huldah is readily available online.
    At this point, as far as I am concerned, Farris and his attorney have lost the argument. If a third party is going to be brought in to make yet another argument on PRA I believe the third party should be a volunteer, skilled, Constitutional Law attorney or one selected, and in either case agreed upon as objective by Hulda, Freedom Outpost, Tim Brown as editor, and Farris with his attorney.
    I really don't understand clearly what Farris is proposing to amend. If it is the Constitution, Art. 5 of the Constitution details the process of amending it, and several websites give the history of the process, e.g.,
    For reasons that should be obvious I am opposed to the current administration messing with the Constitution or any changes to it.
    I do not see any reason for legislating about parental rights and responsibilities that are spelled out in the Bible clearly and in societal practices detailed in shelves of books on the subjects.
    Also, there are more than enough laws already at every level of government - Federal, state or local - ordinances in the latter case dealing with child abuse, care, neglect, etc. If anything a lot of those are most likely unnecessary and obtrusive into parental rights and responsibilities.
    Big and bigger government, nanny state is not the way to go; personal responsibility is.
    I plan to review this tomorrow - Monday, July 28 - and to make any additions, deletions, corrections or leave it as it is.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

    • RonMar

      I have reviewed my post in the bright, warm sunshine this morning before the afternoon rains start. I see no reason to change any of it with the exception of correcting the minor correction of a couple of typos.
      Make your day a blessed one, and know where your children are and what they are doing with whom.

    • T. Edward Price

      Excellent analysis, RonMar, as usual. There is absolutely no need for the PRA. Although PH argues from a different paradigm than do I, she makes as cogent and detailed of a Constitutional case as possible. My concern is ANY governmental oversight of parental "rights". God gives us an inescapable DUTY in all areas of parental RESPONSIBILITIES. The PRA is a usurpation of that which God has already made perfect. And it appears that Michael Farris believes the government can do God one better.

      On another note, have you had much opportunity for shooting lately?

      Eddie Price

    • RonMar

      Thank you. It seemed simple and straight forward to me as I worked through and kept thinking about it. The fewer human-contrived laws and interpretations of the Constitution we have the better off we are.
      I have not taken as much time as I would like for target practice lately, only doing some familiarization with some new guns and features I have added to some of the longer-owned ones. I expect that to change next month when I get involved in a bit of weapons handling, care and marksmanship training.
      Blessings to you and yours,

  • Mark McCandlish

    There are several oversights here that once illuminated, will show that the Supreme Court's decision was consistent with the Constitution, the 14th Amendment and case law.

    First, it is well settled that when two adults come together in marriage and obtain a State-issued license to marry, they have willfully made the State a third party to the marriage and as such, the State has a role in not only monitoring the morals and behavior of those adults, but the safety of their children as well. This is why the State can legally step in and prosecute parents if they abuse or harm their children, even if it is a faith-based denial of medical care for that child, and deemed by the parents to not be necessary if they merely pray for their child to be "healed". This is why Child Protective Services can come and take their kids away.

    Secondly, the Parental Rights Amendment specifically refers to each parent as a "person", and the legal definition of "person" includes being a corporate entity, which in point of fact the United States government sees every citizen as. That is, after all what being "enfranchised" means. And what is the alternative? Sovereignty, that's what. And a "person" is not a "sovereign". And it says so right in the 14th Amendment, another mistaken choice as a foundation for the PRA, since the 14th Amendment was about establishing equal protection under the law for Blacks who were emancipated after the Civil War. Just look what it says: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." NOTE the phrase: "..Person...subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." (Subject status. Not sovereign.)

    But it turns out the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified. In the Congressional Record for June 13, 1967, you will find the presentational of Sen. John Rarick, who upon the findings of the Congressional Research Service, determined it had neither been properly ratified, nor signed by President Johnson. See text at:

    The only parents who have sovereignty and therefore complete control over their children are those married outside the sanction of the State under Common Law and who are Common Law state citizens. (Also designated as "citizens in the several states" and distinguished in three places in the Constitution from "U.S. citizens".) If you are a United States citizen and a "person" under the law (enfranchised) the State has every right to interfere under the guidelines of the Constitution, including federal and State law. Well, at least as long as the courts continue to assert erroneously that the 14th Amendment was properly ratified, and as long as you get a marriage license.

  • publiushuldah

    @ COMA LiteJ: You’re saying that I am not really a Christian and so people shouldn’t believe me. That is just another ad hominem attack.

    If Farris and his followers represent “Christianity”, who would want it? All your side does is brag, make ad hominem attacks, ignore my demonstrably true arguments, insist on the truth of things which are obviously false, and plot to destroy the Principle of GOD-given unalienable rights and replace them with UN doctrines of “fundamental” rights which can be “infringed” at the will of government.

    • COMALite J

      Do not tell me what I’m “saying.” I know exactly what I said, and exactly what I meant by it. Had I meant to say that you weren’t really a Christian, I would’ve said so outright (though, come to think of it, I do strongly suspect you of being a Dispensationalist, which is in fact not really Christian by one of the main dictionary definitions of the term). What I said was that you believe in two contradictory philosophies. Ayn Rand is incompatible with what Jesus actually taught.

      For the record, you really should Reply to comments (by clicking the “Reply” link near the bottom left of a comment, right between the up-and-down-vote and the “Share” links) instead of posting a new top-level comment when answering what someone else said. That way. we get notified of the Reply. It also helps to spell their handle correctly so that, barring such a notification, at least we can do a [Ctrl]+[F]ind in our browsers to look for our handles. You both misspelled my handle and posted a top-level post instead of Replying to me. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt this time and assume that you simply didn’t know any better, rather than were deliberately and deceptively trying to make it look like I had no rebuttal. I would hope that you wouldn’t stoop to such trickery.

      As for the rest of your post: do you even know what “ad hominem” actually is? It is not a synonym for “insult.” Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to refute the person making an argument based on something about that person, rather than refuting the argument itself. While insults are often used for this purpose, not all insults are argumentum ad hominems, and conversely, not all argumentum ad hominems are insults.

      “You follow the anti-christian Ayn Rand” is neither an insult nor an argumentum ad hominem. It’s a statement of fact based on your signature on your post. Had I said that your arguments are wrong because you follow Ayn Rand, that would qualify as argumentum ad hominem. See the difference?

      My “side”? You don’t even know what “my side” is! I refute falsehoods whenever I encounter them, regardless of who posts them or what their positions are. I’ve taken Michael Moore to task on his own “mmflint” Official YouTube channel for his shameless deceptive trickery, for instance. My only “side” is honest debate.

      I haven’t ignored your arguments, I wasn’t even talking about them. I was commenting on two things in your signature (your Christianity and your following of Ayn Rand), and showing how those two are inherently contradictory. That’s all. I’ll refute your arguments (which are not “demonstrably true”) when I have more time to spend on forums such as this.

      Rights don’t come from your god. They come from Whoever or whatever created Persons or caused us to come into being. Thomas Jefferson was very careful in his wording. He used only generic Deist euphemisms for the generic functions of deities in general in the Declaration of Independence. He did this four times (of which that is only one): “Nature’s God,” “their Creator,” “Supreme Judge,” and “divine Providence,” in that order.

      “Nature’s God” could just as easily be any pagan nature god or goddess. “Supreme Judge” could as easily be Pluto or Hades or Anubis or Enma or the Valkyrie or any other pagan god or goddess whose main task is to judge the dead. Any god or goddess who can intervene on behalf of his or her worshipers in any way qualifies as “divine Providence.”

      As for “their Creator,” not only could that be any creator god or goddess ever worshiped by people, it could just as easily be the Big Bang followed by coalescing of the Milky Way and Solar System and Earth (with rocky and metallic elements ejected from supernovæ) followed by abiogenesis followed by neo-Darwinian evolution.

      Jefferson’s point in using that phrase is that the Rights are inherent in all Persons, rather than having been granted or bestowed. Because Rights are neither granted nor bestowed, they cannot be revoked. Waived or suspended or suppressed, yes. Revoked, no.

      Had Jefferson intended to mean specifically and solely the God of the Holy Bible, worshiped by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, he would’ve written, “the LORD [small caps there — we can’t do those here] God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” or “the LORD Sabaoth of Hosts,” or some such. Had he intended to mean solely and specifically the God of Christianity alone, he would’ve written, “Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Those were the standard nomenclatures of the day to refer to the Judæo-Christian or Christian-specific deities. He did neither.

    • $41946946

      I was just reading some of your old posts in dashboard 'activity' and had to comment on this one. You have lumped together Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and I want to point out that the teachings of Islam are so far away from the message of the Holy Bible that they cannot be considered the final extension of Judaism and Christianity as they wish to claim. They are a murdering Satan worshiping cult bent on ruling the world by force.

    • COMALite J

      They are lumped together solely because all three claim to believe in the LORD God of Abraham (“Ibrahim” in Arabic and Hebrew). As such, they are collectively known as the Abrahamic Faiths. I meant nothing else by that.

      I will say this much: the problem with any Abrahamic faith, or most other faiths for that matter, isn’t the religions themselves, but rather fundamentalism. For centuries (well after Muhammad was gone [starting with the Abbasid caliphate, the fhird dynasty after Muhammad], but well before modern times), Islam in general (there were exceptions) did not take itself too seriously. The Islamic empires of the Seljuk Turks and others up to and including the Ottoman Empire were quite secular, and as a result both preserved and advanced knowledge in many fields, including mathematiwc (algebra itself is actually an Arabic word: al-jabr — and there’s a reason we call the digits that we use to this very day “Arabic numerals” [yes, the concept was actually invented by the Hindus, but the Arabs preserved and improved on it] — this includes the very concept of digits, without which digital computers, or digital anything for that matter, would be impossible [imagine building computers based on Roman Numeral principles, which was what Western Civilization was stuck with for well over a millennium after Christ — heck, we still use them for formal purposes, outlines, etc.]!), science, medicine (they invented 24-hour hospitals, mental health care, etc.), the arts, philosophy, etc., during times when Christianity was mired in the Dark Ages. Indeed, the knowledge gained by the Christian West from Islam via the Crusades, etc. helped end said Dark Ages.

      But then along came Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī, an Islamic fundamentalist. His books, including “The Incoherence of the Philosophers,” urged a “return” to the fundamentals of Islam, and repudiated philosophy and other advancements. He is considered the single most influential Muslim in history since Muhammad himself.

      He wasn’t the sole cause, but his work was definitely a major factor in the decline of the great achievements of the Arabic, Turkish, and other secular Islamic nations of medieval times.

      Yes, since Islam lost its secularism, and even moer since the extremist fundamentalist Whab’bis converted the Saud Royal Family (they who put the “Saud” in “Saudi Arabia” — where Mecca is!), Islam has indeed degenerated into a dire threat to world civilization that produces very little (other than the geographical accident of having much of the world’s remaining liquid petroleum reserves under their soil). But it wasn’t always that way, and no, they don’t worship Satan and never have — not even now (they call him “Shaitan”).

      This is why people like me oppose fundamentalism in general and theocracy in particular, regardless of whether it’s Muslim, Christian, or any other. We oppose all Sharia Law or anything like it, including attempts to replace the Constitution with the Mosaic or other Biblical Law by groups such as the Chalcedon Foundation, etc.

      The world has seen truly great civilizations brought low by embracing religious fundamentalism — twice that I know of (the aforementioned Islamic civilizations, and the Dark Ages that were brought on and perpetuated largely by Christianity).

      Today’s theocratic Christian fundamentalists are very similar to al-Ghazālī. They oppose science itself and anything else that threatens their worldview. They don’t just avoid it themselves (I’d have no problem with that), but seek to remove it from all of society. “Intelligent Design” was invented specifically and solely as a “wedge” to do precisely that — this is not speculation, but is straight from the words of Philip E. Johnson, the man who pretty much invented the “Intelligent Design” movement. “The Wedge” is his term!

    • $41946946

      I reject calling Islam an Abrahamic faith, or any kind of faith at all when the 'Koran clearly identifies Satan as Allah' and join up or be killed is their theme.

    • Jay_tea

      I completely agree with you about the Koran, as well as regarding any sprout of Islam originating from Muhammed, but as far as I know Islam existed long before either Muhammed or the Koran which he wrote. In my opinion, Islam is a religion originating from Abraham but was not commissioned by God and thus was ripe to be overtaken by the devil through Muhammed.
      Now, I could easily be completely wrong about that, but I wanted to share.

    • COMALite J

      You don’t get to decide what is or is not an Abrahamic faith. Islam is considered one, always has been since its inception, and that’s that.

      Citation needed on “Koran clearly identifies Satan as Allah.”

      On the other hand, the Holy Bible in several non-KJV popular versions (including CEB, CEV, ERV, EXB [with a clarifying insert correcting a common misinterpretation], GNT, GWT, HCSB, LEB, NOG, NASB [slight variant], NCV [corrected interpretation], NIRC [ditto], NIV, The VOICE, and WEB, and perhaps others as well) actually does identify Jesus as Satan! Not just Satan’s brother as the LDS believe, but Satan himself (at least according to how most Christians [including LDS] [incorrectly] interpret a certain passage)!

      Don’t believe me?

      • Revelation 22:16 (in most any English translation, not just the ones above) ← Who is “morning star”?

      • Isaiah 14:12 (in any of the ones listed above, though some have clarifying language that corrects a common misinterpretation here) ← Who is “morning star”?

      On “join up or be killed,” you’re apparently thinking of the “Sword Verse” from the Qu’ran, Sura 9:5. That is often both mistranslated and taken out of context as, “Kill the infidels wherever ye may find them.”

      The Arabic word translated “infidels” there actually refers to a very specific kind of polytheist, namely, one who does believe in the LORD God of Abraham (aka “Allah” which is simply Arabic for “God”), yet also believes in other gods as well. In other words, it’s referring specifically to Arab pagans of Muhammad’s day who only partly converted to Islam, yet sought to keep on worshiping their pagan gods and goddesses as well. The literal meaning is, “those who join Allah [God] with [other] gods.”

      Such were considered far worse than infidels including pagans and polytheists. It was more of an outright heresy than merely being an infidel.

      But even so, when read in context, you see that the passage is referring only to those Allah-plus-others-worshiping pagan heretics who were taking up arms against the “true” Muslims. Kill those wherever you may find them.

      Context is very important in any study, be it any scriptures, or historical records, or anything else. Look what out-of-context quoting can do with the Holy Bible!

      • Exodus 8:10: “…there is no God….” (CEV & The Message)
      • Exodus 9:14: “…there is no God….” (EtR)
      • Deuteronomy 3:24: “…there is no God….” (EtR & GNT)
      • Deuteronomy 32:39: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except BB, CEV, D-R, Gnv, GNT, JST, Knox, LITV, MCB, Msg, NIRV, NJB, NLT, & WE)
      • Deuteronomy 33:26: “…there is no God….” (GB1599 & MCB)
      • I Samuel 2:2: “…there is no God….” (Exp, GB, & NCV)
      • II Samuel 7:22: “…there is no God….” (CJB, ERB, ESV‡, EtR, Exp, HCSB, LEB, LITV, MCB, NAB, NASB, NCV, NIV†, NLB, NLV, NRSV‡, RSV‡, UBv1.9, Voice, & YLT)
      • II Samuel 22:32: “…there is no God….” (EtR & PLT)
      • I Kings 8:23: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except CEV [Msg has this at verse 22], CJB, JST, Knox, LITV, Voice, & YLT)
      • II Kings 1:3: “…there is no God….” (Amp, ASV, Exp, ERB, ERV, ESV‡, Exp, GB, GNT, HCSB, JPS, JST, LEB, NAB, NASB, NCV, NKJV, NIV†, NLV, NRSV‡, PLT, RSV‡, & UBv1.9)
      • II Kings 1:6: “…there is no God….” (ASV, Exp, ERB, ERV, ESV‡, Exp, GB, GNT, HNV, HCSB, JPS, JST, LEB, NAB, NASB, NCV, NKJV, NIV†, NLV, NRSV‡, PLT, RSV‡, & UBv1.9)
      • II Kings 1:16: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except BB, CEV, CJB, EtR, GB, GNT, Knox, LEB, LITV, MCB, Msg, NJB, NLT, NRSV‡, Voice, & YLT)
      • II Kings 5:15: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except CEV, LITV, Holman, & YLT)
      • I Chronicles 17:20: “…there is no God….” (CJB, ESV‡, Exp, HCSB, LEB, NAB, NCV, NIV†, NLV, NRS, PLT, RSV‡, UBv1.9, & YLT)
      • II Chronicles 6:14: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except CEV [Msg has this at verse 12], JST, LITV, & PLT)
      • Job 12:6: “…there is no God….” (PLT)
      • Psalms 10:4: “…there is no God….” (Amp, ASV, BBE, CJB, Darby, ERV, ESV‡, Exp, GB, LEB, LITV, NASB, NJB, NLV, NRS, PLT, RSV‡, UBv1.9, & Voice)
      • Psalms 14:1: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except BBE, Msg, JPS, JST, LITV, & YLT [Knox has this in 13:1])
      • Psalms 18:31: “…there is no God….” (EtR & PLT)
      • Psalms 53:1: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except BBE, CJB, JST, LITV, & Msg [JPS has this at verse 2, Knox has this in 52:1])
      • Psalms 71:19: “…there is no God….” (EtR)
      • Psalms 86:8: “…there is no God….” (BBE, Exp, GNT, NCV, & Wycliffe)
      • Proverbs 30:1: “…there is no God….” (Msg)
      • Isaiah 44:6: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except CEV, EtR, JST, Knox, LITV, MCB, Msg, NKJV, & NCV)
      • Isaiah 44:8: “…there is no God….” (KJ1611, KJ21, KJV*, PLT, & TMB)
      • Isaiah 45:5: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except CEV, CJB, EtR, Exp, JST, Knox, Msg, NASB, NCV, NJB, & Voice)
      • Isaiah 45:6: “…there is no God….” (Amp, BBE, & GWT)
      • Isaiah 45:14: “…there is no God…” (ASV, ERV, KJ1611, KJ21, KJV*, Knox [Isaias], LEB, & NASB)
      • Isaiah 45:21: “…there is no God….” (Amp, ASV, Darby, ERV, JPS, KJ1611, KJ21, KJV*, Knox [Isaias], NKJV, NIRV, NIV†, & TMB)
      • Isaiah 46:9: “…there is no God….” (D-R & Wycliffe)
      • Daniel 3:29: “…there is no God….” (BB, GB, & MCB)
      • Micah 7:18: “…there is no God….” (EtR, Exp, NCV, & PLT)
      • Judith 6:2: “…there is no God….” (D-R)
      • Sirach [Ben Sira] 36:2: “…there is no God….” (D-R)
      • Sirach [Ben Sira] 36:5: “…there is no God….” (D-R, GNT, KJ1611, KJV, & NRSV [NAB has this at verse 4])
      • Sirach [Ben Sira] 36:13: “…there is no God….” (D-R)
      • II Esdras 8:58: “…there is no God….” (KJV, NRSV‡, & TMB)
      • Mark 12:29 : “…there is no God….” (Knox)
      • Luke 16:21 : “…there is no God….” (JST-LDS)
      • I Corinthians 8:4: “…there is no God….” (Amp, ASV, BBE, ERV, ESV‡, HCSB, JBP N.T., LEB, Mounce R-I N.T., Msg, NAB, NIV†, NJB, NRVS, RSV‡, UBv1.9, Voice, Webster, Wesley N.T., Weymouth N.T. & Wycliffe [for obvious reason, this is the only appearance of that phrase in the JBP, Mounce, Wesley, & Weymouth])

      (* The KJV references (other than the two in the Apocrypha) are also found in the AKJV [American King James Version].)
      († The NIV references are also found in its variants including the NIV-UK and TNIV [Today’s NIV].)
      (‡ The ESV, NRSV‡, and RSV references are also found in their variants including Anglicized, Catholic, and Anglicized Catholic versions [NRSV Apocrypha reference {Sirach/Ben Sira 26:5} found only in Anglicized and/or Catholic].)

      At any rate, when it comes to “convert or die,” nothing that I know of trumps the Old Testament — certainly not the Qur’an! Just for starters, I’ll put the entire (so no claiming “out of context”) Thirteenth Chapter of Deuteronomy up against anything you could find in the Qu’ran, even the Sword Verse out of context!

      Just read it. It has three basic sections:

      • Verses 1–5 ← According to this section, the Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Chief Priests did the right thing (as far as they could under Roman domination) when they had the Romans kill Jesus. After all, what was He from their PoV, as far as they could tell? He was a prophet who (allegedly) made prophecies that came true and did true miraculous works, yet preached the worship of “other gods” whom they had not known before (namely Himself as God the Son, not to mention God the Holy Ghost)!

      • Verses 6–11: ← In which, if any of your family, no matter how beloved (even your own child!), or even your BFF, were to apostatize, not only must you personally turn him or her in for execution by stoning, but you personally must cast the first stone at him or her! In more modern parlance, you would have to pull the switch yourself!

      And now, the biggie:

      • Verses 12–17: ← If you learn that apostates have preached in any city known to you, and any people there are persuaded to apostatize because of them, then you must investigate, and if this turns out to be true, you must do the nearest equivalent available in the technology of the day of nuking the entire city, and following up with conventional weapons to make sure that every living thing therein is killed. Moreover, you must absolutely destroy everything from the city, no matter how valuable either financially nor historically nor culturally. The entire city must be wiped off the map forever!

      And finally, Verse 18 closes with the LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacab, Himself saying that He will only bless the nation if they keep all of those horrific commandments!!

      You really wanna compare the Qur’an with that!? Actually, Muslims do believe in the Old Testament and Mosaic Law, so Deuteronomy 13 is applicable to them as well.

      Note that the penalties here are for false prophets and apostates, though, not for mere infidels. As I showed above, even the Qur’an doesn’t advocate the killing of mere infidels (non-believers).

      But the Bible does. No, not Deuteronomy 13. Later on.

      In II Chronicles Chapter 15, the prophet Azariah, son of Oded is sent by the LORD to meet with King Asa of Judah. Long story short, Azariah urges Asa to return the entire Kingdom of Judah to the worship of the LORD alone, and Asa does so with a vengeance. Not only does he destroy every idol he and his men can find, but they require that everyone must convert to the worship of the LORD, on pain of death. See especially verse 13: anyone who did not seek after the LORD was put to death! They didn’t even have to preach some other god, nor be apostates, nor heretics. Even being a mere non-believer was a capital offense!

      And the LORD blessed Judah because they did this!

      These are only two of numerous examples I could show you.

    • $41946946

      Christianity is our best source of instruction for righteous living and for that reason I say 'I wish you had sent this post to my e-mail'. It seems to pretty well kill Jesus again except for the fact that He rose from the grave and ascended into the clouds. I'll stick with Jesus since His message parallels mine. I'm afraid many believers will read your post and be stuck with believe it or don't believe in Jesus at all. If that happens I hope they continue to read and see this post that points out the significance of Jesus rising from the dead and leaving the Earth. Of course some will say He wasn't really dead, but I think the spear in the heart would have done it convincingly (except for a few that refuse the truth).

    • COMALite J

      In what way does my post “pretty well kill Jesus again”? Be specific, please.

      All I did was point out what your own Bible clearly and plainly says. If you don’t like what your own Bible clearly and plainly says, don’t blame me:

      →⇒ I didn’t write it!! ⇐←

    • $41946946

      My point is; just that the Israelites had clear orders to reject/kill exactly what Jesus was, as you already mentioned, which makes things weird since God would have known of His salvation plan and sending His 'Word' in the flesh to represent Him. That's why the resurrection/ascension is the only reason we have to accept Jesus' sacrifice. Miracles, demon control, healings, and mind/heart reading all got peoples attention, but I think others could do some of that stuff by magic (for instance Simon Peter the sorcerer, who I believe started the Universal church) Jat cover it?

    • RonMar

      Outrageous! Please stop it with the overly long, arrogant, off topic essays.
      If I understood what you said earlier you are not a Christian, are probably even an atheist, agnostic or other kind of unbeliever in God. It is really amusing, therefore, for you to try using God's Holy Word to make any point, especially in an essay totally off topic of this news forum thread.
      As a seminary graduate, long-time student of Islam and other contemporary world religions, and an ordained minister serving in ministry specifically to Muslims, I most certainly can decide what is a religion. I have decided Islam is not but rather a violent, even tyrannical, oppressive, despotic and evil political power and control system.
      I told you part of that already and gave an example from the Five Pillars of Islam. Also it did not take me pages to do it, nor did I talk down to others that I do not know well at all. Instead I invited questions from any who are interested in learning more of what I have to teach about Islam (and other religions) as I have done for some years by now.

    • COMALite J

      Off-Topic? All of my posts have been in Reply to someone else, except for one which was to and about the author of this article, @publiushuldah:disqus (I did it that way so that she would be notified and have a fair chance of defending herself), and have been on the subject of that person’s post. or directly related thereto.

      In this case, @Jim044:disqus (whom I respect even though I disagree with him) and I were engaged in conversation. Yes, it strayed from the subject of this article, but we both share blame in that.

      To be specific, @publiushuldah:disqus had posted a post that wasn’t a Reply to me, and which misspelled my handle so that I wouldn’t get a notice of it nor be able to easily find it. I noticed it anyway as I was here for another reason and happened to see it.

      In my Reply to that post, which I did post as an actual Reply to @publiushuldah:disqus (even though she didn’t do so for me), I happened to off-handedly mention that the LORD God of Abraham is worshiped (under various names) by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam alike. That was my only mention of Islam.

      @Jim044:disqus came along and saw that one word, part of a simple comma-separated conjunctive noun list, and started the tangent of Islam not really being an Abrahamic faith. I then Replied to that.

      Yes, I am currently a “weak” agnostic “weak” atheist, but have spent most of my life as a Bible-believing Saved-by-Grace Washed-in-the-Blood-of-the-Lamb Christian. I know the Bible reasonably well. I do not claim to be an expert.

      You talk to me about arrogance, yet you say, and I copy-paste quote: “I have decided [that] Islam is not [a religion,] but rather a violent, even tyrannical, oppressive, despotic and evil political power and control system.”

      You have decided, so that makes it so, for the whole world, for all of humanity, huh?

      And you dare to come down on me for arrogance? Thou hypocrite! First cast out the General Sherman redwood tree out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the single molecule of wood cellulose out of mine!

      Oh, and again, can you actually refute the points that I actually raised?

      Do the passages that I cited in the Bible not actually say what I asserted that they say? In what way did I get them wrong?

    • RonMar

      Removed and re-posted above.

    • RonMar

      I'm not going to wade through all this trash, especially since you are being so boringly repetitive that we have covered some of it already.
      As I have said to you 3x now, "The shorter 'ad hominem' attack does okay for me; you got the point. I might read your post(s) some day watching particularly for any points you might have made accidentally on anything I didn't know for a long time by now and 'actually refute [your] points.'"
      I believe you said you are an atheist or words like that. It is, therefore, amusing that you use God's Holy Word in any shape, form or fashion. Also, as a Christian, etc., I am not at all interested in what you or any other atheist or other Godless has to say about the Bible. Chances are I have heard it all before, and it bores me a lot at this point in my life.
      I wish you could, would learn to read with comprehension and not focus so much on peripheral issues, try to stay focused on the key meaning and points.
      Given your many problems I understand well why you are an atheist if you indeed are.

    • COMALite J

      I believe you said you are an atheist or words like that. It is, therefore, amusing that you use God’s Holy Word in any shape, form or fashion.

      Sorry, that’s a logical fallacy. The Bible says what it says no matter who quotes it. or what that person does or does not believe. Not one letter, not one molecule of ink, is altered by the fact than an atheist quotes it instead of a Christian.

      You see, what you did there was an example of argumentum ad hominem that was not an insult per se. I freely admit to being a “weak” agnostic “weak” atheist. You are claiming that because of that fact alone, that any argument I may make about or using the Bible may be summarily dismissed out-of-hand, just because I’m no longer a believer.

      That is what argumentum ad hominem actually means: attempting to refute or dismiss an argument solely because of something about the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself.

      If I were to say, “RonMar is a loony religious fanatic kook,” that would be an insult, but not an argumentum ad hominem in and of itself. But, if I were to say, “RonMar’s latest post, and indeed all of his arguments, are wrong because he’s a loony religious fanatic kook,” that would be argumentum ad hominem.

      (Note: I am not actually calling you a loony religious fanatic kook. That was simply for illustration, to demonstrate what is and what is not argumentum ad hominem and how it differs from insults.)

      Anyway, even a non-insult can still be argumentum ad hominem, just as an insult can be not an argumentum ad hominem. For instance, if I left out the “loony … fanatic kook” part from the above, and summarily dismissed your arguments just because you are a religious Christian, that would still be an argumentum ad hominem, though it would not be an insult (at least, I would hope that a minister such as yourself would not take being called a Christian as an insult).

    • RonMar

      No, it's not a logical fallacy. As illogical as you are you are not qualified even to address logic.
      This babbling of yours is a logical fallacy - "Not one letter, not one molecule of ink, is altered by the fact than an atheist quotes it instead of a Christian." It is the propaganda technique of Straw Man, and it argues a point not even in consideration.
      I'll use plainer language in an attempt to penetrate your thick, rather empty, useless skull and get right to the point:
      You come across as and are ridiculous like all other atheists I have encountered in my rather long lifetime saying you are an atheist - do not believe in God - and at the same time trying to use the Word of God.
      A seeker of God or believer in God reads the Bible with understanding and acceptance. An atheist cannot even read the Bible, certainly not with any understanding or acceptance. Atheists have already rejected God, thus that the Bible is the Word of God.
      ad hominem is defined in many dictionaries with many examples of its different meanings. I was not trying to be exhaustive in my post content about ad hominem and as boring or caught up in majoring in the minors, arguing over minutia as you are habitually.
      You certainly have chosen an apt childish user name for yourself since you do appear to be in a coma of some depth.
      Beating dead horses is not my thing, nor is arguing endlessly over things of little to no consequence. Thus, I am through with you. Try to make you life a good one.
      Goodbye and good luck, since luck - mostly and in the end, your end, certainly bad - is all you have going for you right now.

    • COMALite J

      Last bit first: Ah ha ha ha! Oh gosh that’s funny! That’s really fu—! D’y’— do you write your own material? Do you? Because that is so fresh. “You certainly have chosen an apt childish user name for yourself since you do appear to be in a coma of some depth.” You know, I’ve, I’ve never heard anyone make that joke before. Hmm. You’re the first. I’ve never heard anyone reference, reference that outside the COMAL User’s Group before. Because tha— that’s what the acronym with the “-ite” suffix (as in “Israel-ite”) looks like, isn't it? A “Lite Coma.” And, and yet you’ve taken that, an— and used it out of context to insult me in this everyday situation. God what a clever, smart person you must be, to come up with, with a joke like that all by yourself. That’s so fresh, too. Any, any “I Love Lucy” jokes you want to throw at me too, as long as we’re hitting these phenomena at the height of their popularity? Hmm? ’Cause I’m ri— I’m here. God you’re so funny!!

      Moving right along: My career (which I’m quite good and successful at) is based on logic. I am a computer programmer and have been for decades. My handle refers to COMAL (COMmon ALgorithmic Lanugage), an obscure (these days) computer programming language that had some popularity in the mid-to-late 80s (more so in Canada and Europe than in the USA, and mostly on the Commodore 64, 128, and Amiga). The COMAL User’s Group was founded and headed by “Captain COMAL,” and all of the other members were known as “COMALite _” where “_” was one of the initials of their real name (chosen to avoid conflicts).

      That’s “COMAL-ite,” not “Coma-Lite.” I’ve been using this same username almost everywhere I post online, starting with the old Commodore 64-specific dial-up pre-Internet online service PlayNET, which soon licensed its software to and was soon thereafter destroyed in the market by QuantumLINK aka “Q-Link” by Quantum Computer Services, which later started (for Macs and PCs, first as AppleLINK Personal Edition and PC-Link, respectively, then merging the two) AmericaOnline, then changed the company name to that, then changed both to AOL when they went global. I still use this name because I had friends on those services that I hope to encounter again, and I know that they would recognize this username.

      And you called me (or, rather my user name) “childish”? Making fun of people’s names (including user names) is the childish thing to do. You did that, not me.

      Do note that hypocrisy is the one sin that your Lord and Savior condemned more times than He did any other sin!

      Moving right along — you have absolutely no idea, at all, what the “Straw Man” fallacy actually is, do you? Don’t use terms when you don’t know what they actually mean. That makes you look — well, really stupid.

      “Straw Man” refers to the tactic of constructing a false version of your opponent’s argument(s) or position(s), then refuting those instead of what the opponent is actually arguing.

      Please show me where I ever did that. Copy-and-paste from a post of mine.

      What I did there is called “Reductio ad Absurdum” and is a valid logic and debating tactic, not a fallacy. I reduced your silly argument that atheists cannot quote the Bible to the point of absurdity to demonstrate its inherent absurdity.

      The Bible says what it says and means what it means, no matter who quotes it. The same goes for any other written work.

      I used to be a believer. I was a born-again Christian for much of my life. I read the Bible all the way through, from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21, in multiple versions, as a believer. It was reading the Bible that made me into an atheist. I understand it quite well. I just no longer believe in it nor accept it as the truth in all things.

      I do like and even follow many of its moral teachings, such as those found in Ecclesiastes and most of the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus as given in the Synoptic Gospels and to a lesser extent the Gospel According to Saint John.

    • RonMar

      Starting with the first paragraph of your overly long post as usual you:
      1. reveal yourself as a fount of misinformation about contemporary world religions, especially Judaism, Christianity and Islam,
      2. too bogged down in the minutia, majoring in the minors,
      3. arrogantly appearing to talk down to people you don't know well at all or what they already know, and
      4. making errors in English indicating a disregard for the language, sloppy posting or both.
      I am not even sure how we got onto this rabbit trail since it is far off topic of "Parental Rights: God-given and Unalienable? Or Government-granted and Revocable?"
      There are other sites and story topics where Islam and other contemporary religions can be discussed, unless you want to try to talk about differences and similarities of parental rights in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

    • COMALite J

      I’ll address your #4 first: Please show me some errors in my English (honest typos don’t count — my keyboard isn’t in the best condition). Copy-and-paste at least two (you did specify the plural) examples of such from any of my posts here.

      As for “how we got onto this rabbit trail that’s far off topic,” follow the chain of posts and Replies. I wasn’t the one who started this digression. @Jim044:disqus was, seizing on one noun from a comma-separated conjunctive list of three nouns making a completely unrelated point in a post of mine addressed to someone else entirely (@publiushuldah:disqus).

      As for your other points, nice argumentum ad hominems. Care to actually refute what I actually said?

    • RonMar

      No, I won't waste my time pointing out obvious errors to you given your excluding typos and making excuses about your keyboard.
      Blah, blah, blah; I was addressing you about your continuing the rabbit trail and posting an awful lot off topic as you still are. I have not seen you post anything about the topic at hand.
      I copy and paste this for you: "The shorter 'ad hominem' attack does okay for me; you got the point. I might read your post(s) some day watching particularly for any points you might have made accidentally on anything I didn't know for a long time by now and 'actually refute [your] points.'"

    • RonMar

      It is a huge mistake to compare Islam with a religion as Coma probably has done. Islam is in fact a violent political power and control system.
      Mohammed drew on elements of Paganism, Judaism and Christianity and cobbled them together badly to make Islam appear better then the other two major monotheistic religions. The truth of this is seen easily in a careful reading and informed understanding of the Five Pillars of Islam.
      For example Muslims do not really fast during Ramadan as they claim to do. All they do in fact is shift their usual activities - drinking, eating and revelry - from daylight to dark hours.
      I can go through each of the Five Pillars explaining them in a similar way but will do so only if someone shows an interest. Anyone can do the same thing if they have learned Islam from Muslims, practiced with them and studied Islam in graduate school and independently for as long as I have - about a half century since my first contact with Muslims.

    • COMALite J

      Is this the post you referred to above when you said that you had posted to me about the Five Pillars? Because this was posted to @Jim044:disqus, not to me.

    • RonMar

      "Is [what] the post [I] referred to above [where above] when [I] said that [I] had posted to [you] about the Five Pillars?" I know I posted to Jim about the Five Pillars.

    • COMALite J

      Yes, but you had also said that you’d posted to me about the Five Pillars, and I can find no such post in my Disqus Dashboard, though that only goes back so far.

      I’m not calling you a liar. I merely suspected that you maybe had misremembered posting that to me instead of to @Jim044:disqus, since it was in a conversation that both of us were participating in, so that would be a valid misunderstanding.

    • $41946946

      Thanks Ron, I argue with CJ even though I know he's brutal to anyone who questions his incredible knowledge on all subjects. (He does know a lot of stuff but hasn't made it to 'all', for real yet) I haven't made it to your favorite site for a while, I never can find the story that folks are commenting on.
      To me the word religion means to try and please God with good works and of course Islam doesn't fit in that description.

    • COMALite J

      Brutal? I try not to be brutal. In what way was I doing so?

      I certainly do not claim omniscience! That would make me a god, which would inherently contradict my atheism! ;-D

      Again: we do not get to re-define words as we see fit. The Humpty-Dumpty Gambit is not permitted in debate. “Religion” means what the dictionary says it means.

    • $41946946

      Oh come now; you haven't heard people say brutally honest. Another way of saying 'blunt'... Sides; I was talking behind your back. I don't understand what you mean by the Humpty-Dumpty Gambit, but I do understand that there is a certain amount of colloquialism in nearly everybody's use of common words.

    • $41946946

      Also, surprised that you seem to think that dictionaries (someone's opinions)are totally infallible, but the Word of God is just so many rumors and questionable historical writings. Most of what I was able to find in 'online' dictionaries seem to agree in large part to my definition of religion, beginning with the origin of man and rules or laws to live by set forth by the Creator. I think you may be nit-picking.

    • publiushuldah

      You are right, RonMar, about Mohammed's cobbling together paganism, Judaism, and Christianity to come up with islam. I've been reading the koran, sira and hadith, and see the perversions of the Hebrew and Greek Scripture. Write that paper about the 5 pillars - it would be interesting!

    • RonMar

      Wow! Your overly long, tedious, boring posts show an arrogance that is unwarranted based on your performance.

    • COMALite J

      But you have absolutely no problem with “Raymond - Jesus is Lord” posting a 52-chapter book, one chapter per post, in this very thread, do you?

      Nice argumentum ad hominem, by the way. Now, can you actually refute my points?

    • RonMar

      You seem to be living your life on false assumptions at best and having some difficulty reading English with comprehension.
      In view of your question based on your assumption about me in regard to Raymond ... try reading this again please: Your ... tedious, boring posts show an arrogance that is unwarranted based on your performance."
      The shorter "ad hominem" attack does okay for me; you got the point. I might read your post(s) some day watching particularly for any points you might have made accidentally on anything I didn't know for a long time by now and "actually refute [your] points.
      My points to you here are: 1) you are writing a lot of boring crap maybe trying to impress others, and 2) you are showing a lot of arrogance trying to talk down to others as if you hold some superior knowledge or intellect.

    • COMALite J

      Do you even know what argumentum ad hominem is? Argumentum ad hominem ≠ insults.

    • washbear

      Don't you love it when complete strangers try to define your Christianity by THEIR criteria? Sheesh. There'll only be one Lord at the judgement bar, and it ain't COMALite J.

    • Devin_IS_Krazy

      Especially when they are so unacquainted with Christ in the first place. They love to assume the mantle of superiority from their position of inferiority.

  • Patriotsam

    Like Michael Farris, Wm Wagner makes claims about the PRA which he can’t prove, but says we must believe because HE is a law professor, and HE knows. We are ignorant. So we should just believe him.

    They haven’t addressed the points Publius Huldah raised in her two papers. They just insist that the PRA doesn’t do what we can ALL SEE THAT IT DOES!

    Publius Huldah doesn’t brag about herself. She just explains things clearly and logically and provides hyperlinks so that we can check out what she says for ourselves.

    In her papers, Publius Huldah has kicked Farris’ butt. His only response has been to ignore her arguments, brag about himself, and disparage her personally.

    SECTION 3 of the PRA says, “Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.”

    Why can’t a LAW PROFESSOR see that this Section gives the federal and state governments constitutional authority to “infringe” parental rights if they have a good reason to infringe parental rights? Any junior high student who can read can see it.

    And that JUDGES will decide if they have a good reason to “infringe” parental rights?

    And that the federal and state governments don’t now have constitutional authority to “infringe” parental rights?

    This is like the story, The Emperor has no Clothes. Wagner & Farris are like
    the courtiers oohing and aahing over the emperor’s new clothes. Publius Huldah is like the honest child who says, “but he isn’t wearing anything at all!”

    • washbear

      Bravo! Well said!

  • COMALite J

    About Publius Huldah

    Lawyer, philosopher & logician. Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Passionate about The Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand,

    Uhm, Ayn Rand was pretty much the 180° diametric opposite of the Bible (or at least the New Testament). She was not only an atheist but an antitheist, one who actively opposes theism. She was vehemently opposed to even the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus, and called them evil (“Wo unto them that call good evil, and evil good.”)

    Anton LeVay, founder of the Church of Satan and author of The Satanic Bible, said this: “I give people Ayn Rand, with trappings….” in an interview with Kim Klein of The Washington Post in 1970.

    Look, Republicans who claim to be Christians: How long halt ye between two masters? No man can serve two masters.

    Jesus Christ or Ayn Rand ← pick one. Otherwise, you’re doing it wrong.