4
   

Revisiting the subject of the U.N. vs. religion

 
 
Reply Sun 15 Mar, 2020 08:06 pm
ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The United Nations‘ special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief said in a report presented to the Human Rights Council that faith must not be used to justify violence or discrimination, and that when religion seems to provoke acts of violence or discrimination — particularly against women and gays and transgenders — then the global body’s own equal rights’ protections must take priority over the religious teachings.

On the one hand, that’s a no-duh remark. Discrimination in all its forms is bad. So is violence. We get it. On the other hand, though — and this is where it gets dicey — this is the United Nations‘ way of setting government over religion, of prioritizing government over God.


Read carefully. Think critically. This is a U.N. step toward supplanting the religions of the world.

“States have an obligation to guarantee to everyone, including women, girls and LGBT+ people, an equal right to freedom of religion or belief, including by creating an enabling environment where pluralist and progressive self-understandings can manifest,” said Special Rapporteur Ahmad Shaheed, in his annual report, LifeSiteNews wrote.

That’s the no-duh.

Here comes the dicey.

From the U.N.’s news desk: “In his report, the UN expert urges States to repeal gender-based discrimination laws, including those enacted with reference to religious considerations that criminalize adultery; criminalize persons on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity; criminalize abortion in all cases; and facilitate religious practices that violate human rights.”

Shaheed didn’t call out religions by name. But that in itself is problematic.

After all, it’s Islam that breeds violence; Islam that sets women as second-class citizens — or even lower, below the dogs; Islam that tosses gays off rooftops; Islam that rewards suicide bombing martyrs-slash-murderers for Allah with virgins in heaven.

If the goal of the United Nations is to address the root causes of violence and discrimination as it pertains to religion, then the better path toward truth and effectiveness would be to speak boldly and clearly on the dangers of politicized Islam, and the fuzzy boundaries that separate the so-called religion of Islam from the radicalized political beliefs of Islam. And that’s “boundaries” in quotation marks.

But if the goal of the United Nations is to draw moral equivalences between the religions of the world, as if Christianity is Hinduism is Islam is Wiccan and so forth — and then make the case that all are equally prone to discriminate and and subjugate and further acts of brutality and violence — well then, congrats to the special rapporteur.

Lumping the world’s religions together is a tool of confusion and deception that allows the global body to shake its scolding finger in the general direction of “religion,” instead of at the real sources of religious intolerance and violence.

It also subtly casts Christian teachings about the sin of homosexuality, the sin of adultery, and the satanic nature of creating chaos with the God-ordained definition of family as akin to, say, Islam’s open persecution of gays, or Islam’s brutal public punishments of women for adultery.

And when the messaging is complete, when the message of Christianity equals Islam equals any other religion of the world is imprinted on enough mindsets, then watch and see: There will come the United Nations with the solution for all this religion-based discrimination and intolerance and murder and mayhem — government regulation of religion.

Government, over religion.

It’s historical truth that socialists, communists, tyrants, despots and autocrats seek worship of government, not God; seek a secularized society in order to exert greater influence and seize greater control. And if you can’t wipe out religion, what better way to make religion irrelevant than by casting all the religions as the same? The better to break the faith, my dear.

If any government had a vested interest in plowing forth a secularized society, it’s the power-hungry bloated elites of the United Nations.

Beware the “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” the Bible teaches. Beware the United Nations‘ teachings on religions.

Source:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/10/united-nations-is-coming-for-your-religion/


  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 4 • Views: 227 • Replies: 6

 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2020 04:42 am
@neologist,
As opposed to the beliefs of one group of people being used to oppress others. Secular Governments are not stopping people believing what they want, they're stopping oppressors. Oppressors like the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Quote:
At least 20 former Jehovah's Witnesses are suing the group over historical sexual abuse they say they suffered.

The group has a policy of not punishing alleged child sex abuse unless a second person, alongside the accuser, has witnessed it - or an abuser confesses.

It says its elders "comply with child-abuse reporting laws even if there is only one witness", though, and always tell police if a child is in danger.

But one former elder said it had been failing to involve the authorities.
John Viney, who says he was abused between the ages of nine and 13, by "a distant family member who was an active Jehovah's Witness", added children were still being abused and the religious organisation was "inadvertently" protecting their abusers.

"The way that Jehovah's Witnesses handle matters within the congregation, it's a closed shop," he told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme.

"I know for a fact now that there are parents that haven't done anything about the abuse of their children by others because they don't want to bring reproach on Jehovah's name."

Mr Viney's own daughter, Karen, was abused as a child - and has since spoken out about it publicly.

But when she left the organisation, Mr Viney disowned her - something he has regretted ever since.

"When I was an elder and a dad, I put being an elder absolutely first," he said. "And that was a mistake."

Mr Viney said he had eventually reported his own abuser to the police, in 2019, after years of being too "ashamed", only to be told the man had gone on to abuse other children and died in prison.

"What would have happened if I had had the courage and common sense to come forward [at the time]?" he said.

Thomas Beale, a solicitor representing some of the former members, said they had decided to seek compensation after asking the group for an apology only to find it "denying what has happened or refusing to engage".

Those taking the legal action say the organisation is "vicariously liable" for the abuse they say they suffered. Some claim it was negligent.

One woman, Emma - not her real name - said after she had been abused she had been visited by elders who had repeated scripture "about why we should keep it in-house, not follow the laws of the land".

And she had been asked to recount explicit details, with the elders "glaring at me".

Several former members have also told BBC News they were made to discuss their allegations with elders at a "judicial committee", while their alleged abuser sat next to them.

Emma's abuser was jailed for two years.

But, she said, following his release, he had been welcomed back into the organisation.

Labour's Sarah Champion, the chair of a cross-party group of MPs looking at adults who experienced child sexual abuse, said she had "very serious concerns" about a convicted child abuser being allowed "back into a community where they have access to vulnerable people".

She said she had met elders who "believe that there is more than enough safeguarding in place... [but] couldn't think of an example when they would go to the police about their concerns".

And the group saw child abuse as "a sin that they need to deal with internally".

"That's really concerning to me," she added.

The Charity Commission has been investigating the Jehovah's Witnesses organisation since 2013.

A spokeswoman said the inquiry remained ongoing, but would not comment further.

A Jehovah's Witnesses spokesman said: "The only way that a child abuser can gain access to children in a religious organisation like ours, which does not have any programmes that separate children from their parents, is through parents themselves."

He said that for "decades", the organisation had educated parents "about the dangers of child abuse and how they can protect their children" and parents and victims were informed they had the right to report the matter to the authorities.

"If a congregant has been guilty of child sexual abuse, our elders inform parents with minors so that they can take measures to protect their children," he added.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51006771
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2020 05:41 am
@neologist,
It would follow that you disagree with the UN's stance on Iran. Is that the case? If not, why?

Quote:
UN human rights experts have demanded Iran cease harassing and intimidating journalists working for BBC Persian and other Persian-language news outlets.

The journalists have endured death threats, criminal investigations, the freezing of assets and defamation.

Some relatives have been held in degrading conditions and ordered to tell family members to leave the BBC.

The harassment reportedly intensified when the journalists covered the mass anti-government protests in November.

The unrest prompted a bloody crackdown by the security forces. Amnesty International said more than 300 people were shot dead, while a Reuters news agency report put the death toll at 1,500.

Iranian authorities dismissed those figures, but acknowledged killing some "rioters".


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-51838002
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2020 06:12 am
Ah yes, The Washington Times, reactionary rag founded by Sun Myung Moon. The voice of the Moonies. Yeah, I believe that . . . in a pig's eye.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2020 11:43 am
@Setanta,
Good point.
I just forwarded a message sent to me without research.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2020 11:53 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
It would follow that you disagree with the UN's stance on Iran. Is that the case? If not, why?
The UN is as the UN is.
As for their stance on the treatment of journalists, what you say seems reasonable.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2020 06:17 pm
The UN is an Islamic tool and tries to advance political Islam whenever possible. Do you know there are two declaration of Human rights? One comes from Cairo. It uses Sharia to determine those rights.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Revisiting the subject of the U.N. vs. religion
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/04/2020 at 02:23:40