Culture Clips – March 27, 2007

Public Schools: Parental Rights in Jeopardy

One of the clearest measures of a society can be found in its public school system. For example, it is no accident that in totalitarian states, such as North Korea, what may be taught comes directly from the government. Children are indoctrinated early to believe their “Dear Leader” never is wrong even though many do not have enough food to eat. And in war-torn countries or those which are deeply divided by religious differences there are few, if any, functioning public schools …

One of the latest developments in public education is that schools believe they are the de facto parents of the children who attend them. With so many children living with only one parent or two parents who work, with who knows who looking after them, it is no wonder. Now some states are trying to require girls entering the sixth grade to be immunized against something called HPV (Human Papilloma Virus), a virus that only can be transmitted through sex and which causes certain kinds of cancer. What does that say about our public schools and about the state of our culture?

There are so many things wrong with the idea — and the fact that the immunizations would be mandatory rather than voluntary — that it is difficult to know where to begin. However, I shall try. First, the obvious: what do we know about the vaccine? We know it is made by Merck & Company, Inc., a very large pharmaceutical firm that has been busy hiring lobbyists and advertising the drug, called Gardasil (registered trademark), in magazines and on television.

We know that immunization consists of a series of three shots at a cost of approximately $400.00 per child and that making the vaccine mandatory is a Merck goal. We know that Merck lobbyists have descended upon State capitals throughout the country and created a group called Women in Government, which has samples of the “correct” legislation posted on its website. And we know that the Federal Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine late last year …

Of course, there are the obvious cultural and moral implications. What does it say about our society that eleven- and twelve-year old girls might need protection against a virus which can infect them only if they are sexually active? Why on earth should young girls be given this vaccine? This sends the message that educators and parents and guardians simply don’t care. More importantly, how do we as parents send a message to our children and grandchildren that they should stay abstinent until marriage when the schools require them to get vaccinations designed for the sexually active? It makes no sense at all.

Paul Weyrich
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19555

--

Saw This One Coming

The BBC recently ran a story about a German couple named Patrick and Susan. The couple has been living together unmarried for the past six years and has four children. In a continent full of unmarried couples with children, this particular pair stands out — because they are brother and sister …

When German authorities learned about the "relationship," they placed three of their children — two of whom have disabilities — in foster care and charged Patrick with incest. Patrick has already served two years and faces more jail time.

While this story is certainly sordid, unfortunately, it’s not unique. What makes it noteworthy is that the couple is challenging German laws against incest in Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court.

As the couple’s lawyer, Endrik Wilhelm, told the BBC, "This law is out of date, and it breaches the couple’s civil rights." According to the lawyer, the "couple [is] not harming anyone," and the ban "is discrimination."

To those like Juergen Kunze, a geneticist at Berlin’s Charite Hospital, who cite the genetic risks to the offspring of incest, Wilhelm replies: "Why are disabled parents" or "people with hereditary diseases [and] women over 40" allowed to have children?

Anyone who claims to be surprised by this case has not been paying attention to American law. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court found that "consenting" adults had a right to privacy when it comes to sexual relations — any kind of sexual relations. As Justice Scalia pointed out in his stinging dissent, the logic employed by the majority of the court could be applied to laws against "bigamy, same-sex marriage [and] adult incest."

If you deny that there’s a "substantial government interest in protecting order and morality," as courts increasingly are doing, where do you draw the line? Certainly not at same-sex "marriage," as we have seen. The fact is that, as Dr. Kunze puts it, laws like these "based on long traditions in Western societies" have not been stopping courts lately.

The ugly truth is that, absent a "substantial government interest in protecting order and morality," the incestuous couple has the better argument. In a culture where personal autonomy trumps long-established moral traditions, our revulsion does look like the kind of prejudice that Lawrence rejected as the basis for laws.

Chuck Colson
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/ChuckColson
/2007/03/23/saw_this_one_coming

--

Numbers Drop for Married with Children

Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent. The working class and the poor, meanwhile, increasingly steer away from marriage, while living together and bearing children out of wedlock.

"The culture is shifting, and marriage has almost become a luxury item, one that only the well educated and well paid are interested in," said Isabel V. Sawhill, an expert on marriage and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Marriage has declined across all income groups, but it has declined far less among couples who make the most money and have the best education. These couples are also less likely to divorce. Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II.

"We seem to be reverting to a much older pattern, when elites marry and a great many others live together and have kids," said Peter Francese, demographic trends analyst for Ogilvy & Mather, an advertising firm.

Blaine Harden
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2007/03/03/AR2007030300841.html

---

Why Does the ACLU Think Predators Have More Rights than Children?

The Township of Galloway, like many other communities in New Jersey, enacted Ordinance No. 1616 to serve as a buffer zone for children, forbidding convicted sex offenders (over age 18) from residing within 2500 feet of any school, park, playground or day care center in Galloway Township. This kind of stay-away zone makes sense.

Incredibly, the ACLU of New Jersey is seeking to have the law declared unconstitutional. They believe that freedom dictates that convicted sex offenders have the right to live any place of their choosing, regardless of the safety of children. Currently, convicted sex offenders must register with the State of New Jersey under Megan’s Law. Once registered, the Township Residency Requirements apply. The true reality is that convicted sex offenders and, alas, would-be sex offenders regularly prey on their young, defenseless victims at places where they are likely to be — mainly the schools, parks, playgrounds and day care centers which have been designated as prohibited areas of residence by the Township for these convicted sex offenders. Simply put, buffer zones are necessary to protect this most vulnerable segment of our society.

Restrictions created by the stay-away zone merely extend the protection of Megan’s Law. The goal of Megan’s Law is to protect the community through notification either on the Internet or through personal notification to the surrounding residents regarding sexual predators in their midst. The goal of the Township was to add to that protection by creating safe zones in areas frequented by children. In this way, the state statute and local ordinance complement one another.

This statute is constitutional and makes sense. While it does impact the ability of sex offenders to live in particular areas, they are not prohibited from living in the Township. In fact, the impact on these convicted sex offenders is slight when considering the interest at stake. New Jersey courts should balance the interests of both sides, and in this case, the balance tips decidedly in favor of the children. Courts in other states have dealt with the exact same issue and have concluded that there is no fundamental right for sex offenders to reside in the place of their choice in the vicinity of children.

Jay Sekulow
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JaySekulow/
2007/03/22/why_does_the_aclu_think_sexual_
predators_have_more_rights_than_children

Click here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.