ChristiansUnite Forums

The United States Constitution enumerates several liberties having to do with the subject of privacy. The First Amendment grants us the right to free speech, free exercise of religion, and free assembly. The Third Amendment assures that our homes may not be arbitrarily used for the quartering of troops. The Fourth Amendment protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment protects us against self-incrimination and guarantees that our property may not be taken for public use without just compensation. These are all reasonable safeguards designed to curb the abuse of government power.

It is important to note that the word "privacy" is nowhere mentioned in any of the nation's founding documents. Yet, many people — particularly of the liberal persuasion — have latched on to this nebulous concept, systematically employing it to advance policy positions that find no support whatsoever within the actual text of the Constitution. In modern times, the "right to privacy" has become liberalism's weapon of choice for denigrating and destroying America's traditional moral fabric.

In 1965, in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court stated that a general right to "privacy" meant a constitutional right for married couples to obtain contraceptives. Shortly thereafter, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, this right was extended to unmarried couples. Writing for the majority, liberal icon William Brennan Jr. declared, "If the right to privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted government intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Of course, that decision set the stage for Roe v. Wade, which established a woman's full-fledged right to go ahead and kill her unborn child if she so chooses.

However, the liberal conception of parental rights as "fundamental" evaporates should the mother decide not to kill her kid. When this happens, the interests of parents in shaping the character of their offspring become totally subservient to the State's interests in indoctrinating the nation's youth.

Given liberals' insistence that the right to privacy — which has never been formally incorporated into our political ethos — trumps the right to life — which is the first of our "unalienable rights" enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, it is interesting to note how liberals react whenever parents have the audacity to assert their privacy rights against undue government interference. Nowhere else are liberalism's perverse double standards more readily observable than in the public schools.

Liberals have developed a number of bizarre obsessions over the years; among their latest — Islam. This has been on prominent display as liberal educators have embarked on a campaign to instruct students in the sacred liberal doctrines of cultural sensitivity and diversity.

Moreover, in the wake of September 11th — when 19 Muslims took it upon themselves to murder over three thousand innocent Americans — the liberal establishment decided it would be better for us to reach out and understand our enemies than defend ourselves against them. It was only a matter of months until public schools in the state of California had their students memorizing verses from the Koran, assuming Muslim names, wearing robes, fasting, praying to Allah, and even staging their own Jihad in the form of a dice game. Predictably, the ACLU and the rest of its supposed "secular-progressive" cohorts were nowhere to be found.

When the Thomas More Law Center filed suit in U.S. District Court challenging these absurdities, Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled that the program was simply teaching the children about the Muslim religion and was, therefore, "devoid of any religious or devotional intent." The program was also conspicuously devoid of any references to the Islamic proclivity for violence so vividly showcased on 9/11. Furthermore, substitute Christianity for Islam in this case and you can bet that the schools would be found guilty of violating the First Amendment. The name of Jesus is not to be uttered inside the classroom — except in vain.

Clearly, the case aforementioned is not evidence of a principled insistence on a separation between church and state, but rather, a selective hostility toward the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which Western Civilization happens to be built. In the same way, the right to privacy is — for the Left — little more than a cynical tool for undermining Judeo-Christian standards of behavior. If you're a parent, the Left doesn't recognize a right to privacy allowing you to direct the upbringing of your children. It already knows what is best for your kids — just hand them over.

In a landmark case concerning the reach of public education in America, Supreme Court Justice James McReynolds famously declared that "the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

One of the Supreme Court's most important roles in our constitutional system has always been to provide guidance and direction to inferior courts. Moreover, in light of such a clear pronouncement regarding parental rights, it is difficult to imagine how some of our state and circuit courts reach their judgments in this day and age. Anyone who has paid even cursory attention to the goings-on in our court system lately may well be forced to conclude that, contrary to Justice McReynold's sentiment, the child is the mere creature of the State.

About a year and half ago, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that children have an expectation of privacy at home and that parents are not allowed to listen in on their phone conversations. The case involved a 17-year-old who told his 14-year-old girlfriend that he had mugged an old lady on the street and stole her purse. The girl's mother had been listening to the exchange on another phone line and promptly alerted the authorities to the crime.

A perfectly legitimate exercise of parental vigilance, right?

"Wrong!" Said the Washington State Supreme Court. The boy's conviction was struck down because, as any good liberal activist judge knows, "the right to privacy holds fast even when the individuals are teenagers." And parents are not allowed to act as agents on behalf of law enforcement. Of course, the ACLU was delighted with the decision. ACLU attorney Douglas Klunder filed a friend-of-the-court brief saying, "I don't think the State should be in the position of encouraging parents to act surreptitiously and eavesdrop on their children."

One wonders what he would have said had the mother reported a murder or rape to the police as a result of the eavesdropping.

But nevermind, the Washington State Supreme Court does not think parents have the right to monitor who their kids are communicating with — let alone the right to report knowledge of criminal activity to the cops should it be learned through such monitoring.

To discover more rights parents do not have, one need only examine the rulings of the 9th Curcuit Court of Appeals. Late last year, the Palmdale, California school district thought it would be a good idea to distribute questionnaires to 7-10 year-olds asking them about one of liberalism's favorite subjects — sex. The survey probed the kids about such scientific and relevant matters as "touching my private parts too much," "thinking about other people's private parts," "getting scared or upset when I think about sex," etc.

When the parents of these children filed a lawsuit demanding the right to opt their kids out of such surveys, the 9th Curcuit Court of Appeals responded with an emphatic "No." Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Justice Stephen Reinhardt declared that "there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children."

Troubling, indeed. But "His Arrogance" did not stop there. "We also hold," declared Reinhardt, "that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students." According to Reinhardt, public schools can expose children to the most ridiculous and vile smut, and parents cannot do a thing about it.

The ruling is all the more outrageous given the fact that Reinhardt also issued the infamous 2002 ruling that declared the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. To justify himself, Reinhardt stated, in part, that such a religious phrase violated the rights of atheist parents to instill their own set of values in their children.

So, Reinhardt thinks that exposing school-aged children to the Deity is unconstitutional, but exposing them to obnoxious sex surveys is not.

Sexual indulgence — Yes. God — No.

Privacy for criminals — Yes. Privacy for parents — No.

Textbook liberalism.

And they wonder why they never win at the polls. Figure that one out.