How the United Nations Cares About Children (Not)

Billy Hallowell reports:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/06/german-police-raid-controversial-christian-sect-and-seize-40-children/

Lots of commenters immediately remembered the Waco disaster, as did I. But at least these Christian families (note that their lifestyles are somewhat different from a homeless shelter operated by a sex-drugs-and-rock-and-roll cult led by a barely literate gunsmith) didn't shoot at the government agents, so there was no pretext for burning their homes over their children's heads; the children have merely been placed in state-approved "homes." Where they're likely to be more traumatized, more abused, than they would have been in the custody of their natural parents.

No parent-child relationship is perfect, but parent-child relationships can usually be straightened out as children mature. Attempts by government agents to interpose themselves in the "parent" position are, however, more volatile. The most obvious hazard is that substitute parents don't feel any natural inhibitions against being sexually interested in pubescent children. Less obvious, and more likely to create problems: substitute parents may, but quite often don't, feel any more natural affection for children than office workers feel for computers, or restaurant workers feel for customers who didn't leave a tip last week.

Gentle Readers around the world, please keep this story in mind when you read about how the United Nations wants to defend "the rights of the child." Once children are old enough to think about what they value most highly as their natural rights, "being left in peace in my own home" will almost always rate higher than "receiving the kind of education the current administration predicts I'm likely to need twenty or fifty years from now."