"The state doesn't own your children," Paul said in an interview with CNBC's "Closing Bell." "Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom and public health."He's right, of course. "The state" doesn't own children. But neither do parents. Let me say this as clearly as possible: No institution or human being ever owns another human being. Because human beings are not property. To say otherwise is not only dangerous to children, it is a dangerous road for any society to go down.
It's true that parents have a tremendous responsibility to/for their children. It is perhaps the most important and profound responsibility any human being ever has. But that is very different from the idea of children as property to be owned.
In order to cleanse our minds from this kind of vile talk, let's take a listen to Sweet Honey in the Rock putting music to the profound words of Kahlil Gibran on this subject.
I am also reminded of the time in the gospels of the New Testament when the disciples attempted to disrespect children by shushing them away. Jesus' response was: "Suffer the little children to come unto me. For such is the kingdom of heaven."
That's the same sentiment I was trying to capture with this:
UPDATE: In looking around the internet to see if anyone else has written about Sen. Paul's views on the ownership of children, one of the only things I found was this from Jazz Shaw at Hot Air. While s/he disagrees with Paul and thinks vaccines ought to be mandatory, Shaw's big beef is that s/he can't understand why Paul's statement about ownership would be controversial. Because of course the state doesn't own children. Shaw seems to accept that it's an either/or proposition where the idea of ownership isn't questioned - its simply of matter of whether children are the property of the state or their parents. Unbelievable!!!