The Power Of Unitarian Universalism And Its Thread To The Constitution
One point of morality which where Christianity and Unitarian Universalism are opposed is homosexuality. The U.U. adopted support for homosexual rights in the early to mid 70’s just about the same time the American Psychological Association came out with the announcement that homosexuality was not an insanity. There is most likely a relationship between the two.
The U.U. is the established religion of the United Nations which makes it one of the strongest organized religions in the world. It may well compete with the Catholic Church in sheer power. The U.U. owns United Press International which gave it quite a bit of influence through the media. The UPI has suffered a collapse and is no longer consider a major news organization which may have hurt the UU or may be because they have other more subtle means to accomplish the same goal. The UN had a meeting in 1981 in which they declared war on Christianity and other religions that they decide are intolerant and discriminatory. The “civil rights” arm of the United Nations is just a way for the U.U. to force their morality on the world. Evidence shows that they are successful with our top judges, the later even finally admitting that they are using “international law” to settle cases. Note the law is not really international but what the U.N. and it religious arm support.
Thanks to the U.U. we have the Muslim brotherhood that like Christians object to attacks on their religious rights. The Muslim Brotherhood under the nomenclature of Al Qaeda has attacked Western (International Community) interests a number of times including the World Trade Towers on 9/11. Anyone notice the word “World” as compared to the missing word “American” in the name. The HQ for the United Nations is located in New York City which makes it a nice primary target for Al Qaeda.
One thing I am not sure of is why the U.U. and atheist seem to be so linked. It is possible that the fact that atheist and U.U. members are often humanist may be the explanation. It may also be an alliance of convenience that comes from the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I wonder what the stance of the U.U. on the evolution/intelligent design debate. I suspicion that they are evolutionist as that is what our federal courts support.
I do know the U.N. advocates Open Borders and does not legally recognize that illegal aliens exist. That makes sense since there goal is to become a strong central government. The U.U. is just one way of unifying the people by unifying their religions.
I also believe that the U.N. is an enemy of protectionism.
The U.U. is the established religion of the United Nations which makes it one of the strongest organized religions in the world. It may well compete with the Catholic Church in sheer power. The U.U. owns United Press International which gave it quite a bit of influence through the media. The UPI has suffered a collapse and is no longer consider a major news organization which may have hurt the UU or may be because they have other more subtle means to accomplish the same goal. The UN had a meeting in 1981 in which they declared war on Christianity and other religions that they decide are intolerant and discriminatory. The “civil rights” arm of the United Nations is just a way for the U.U. to force their morality on the world. Evidence shows that they are successful with our top judges, the later even finally admitting that they are using “international law” to settle cases. Note the law is not really international but what the U.N. and it religious arm support.
Thanks to the U.U. we have the Muslim brotherhood that like Christians object to attacks on their religious rights. The Muslim Brotherhood under the nomenclature of Al Qaeda has attacked Western (International Community) interests a number of times including the World Trade Towers on 9/11. Anyone notice the word “World” as compared to the missing word “American” in the name. The HQ for the United Nations is located in New York City which makes it a nice primary target for Al Qaeda.
One thing I am not sure of is why the U.U. and atheist seem to be so linked. It is possible that the fact that atheist and U.U. members are often humanist may be the explanation. It may also be an alliance of convenience that comes from the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I wonder what the stance of the U.U. on the evolution/intelligent design debate. I suspicion that they are evolutionist as that is what our federal courts support.
I do know the U.N. advocates Open Borders and does not legally recognize that illegal aliens exist. That makes sense since there goal is to become a strong central government. The U.U. is just one way of unifying the people by unifying their religions.
I also believe that the U.N. is an enemy of protectionism.
posted by Kerwin | 10:21 PM
16 Comments:
Why did God tell us to multiply which has led to us going from 3bil to 6bil people in the last 50 years, which is causing thousands of the species he lovingly created to become extinct every week?
You would think he'd have made "look after the planet" one of his commandments.
I know that the Earth experiences population growth but we do have the space to accommodate a lot of growth. Evidence exists that human fertility in developed nations is decreasing over time. Without immigration the United States would be suffering a declining population like other developed countries currently do.
The United States has extra food but we are unable to get it to those nations with starving populations. Undeveloped countries are the source of population growth. That growth is not necessary evil and may well be sustained by the land as some places where starvation occurs have low population density. Poor government seems to be the cause of starvation more than anything else. That same poor government often stops aid from reaching those in need.
I have not seen any evidence that supports your claim that thousands of species become extinct every week. I do know that species do become extinct as a result of poor management of our worlds natural resources. Governments that are incompetent or negligent when managing the needs of their own people can hardly be expected to do any better with animals.
God did tell man to “look after the planet” by telling us to rule it, since he obviously meant we should rule it well and not poorly. In Genesis 2:15 is even states man is to work and take care of the Garden of Eden.
"The U.U. is the established religion of the United Nations which makes it one of the strongest organized religions in the world. It may well compete with the Catholic Church in sheer power."
You're a riot.
I am not sure if such ignorance is justified in one who seeks to teach politics. Then United Nations and United Universalism proudly display their relationship at http://www.uu-uno.org/ . The power of the UU comes from their association with the United Nations which is a confederate type world government.
The relationship that the UU-UNO "proudly displays" is the same relationship hundreds of organizations have with the United Nations. They are Non-Governmental Organizations.
From the FAQ of http://www.uu-uno.org/?q=taxonomy_menu/1/4
2. What is the UU United Nations Office’s relationship to the UN?
The UU United Nations Office serves as a gateway for UU’s to learn about, participate in, and take action on major UN issues such as human rights, peace, equity, and environmental sustainability. We are the official representative of the UUA to the UN. As such, we are an official NGO with both DPI and ECOSOC...
Everyone is entitled to an informed opinion.
Oh, it almost slipped by me when I read your post; UPI is owned by News World Communications which is owned by the Unification Church NOT the Unitarian Universalist Association. News World Communications also owns The Washington Times, a notoriously conservative newspaper.
Perhaps this is time for you to provide an Emily Litella rejoinder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Litella.)
Everyone is entitled to an informed opinion.
From the link you provided I copied these words.
“An example of our ability to have input into policies of the UN through this conduit is that some of our board was involved in working groups that drafted policies and procedures for the ICC as it was being formed.”
Sounds like an awful lot of power for a religious organization to have within a world government.
From http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/criteria.html
Criteria for a NGO with the DPI of the UN
“the NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN and have a clear mission statement with those principles “
So the UU has to abide by UN principles and preach those same principles. Sounds like a heavy mixture of church and state to me.
Every United Nations NGO has "input" into the policies that are being drafted. Do you understand what "working groups" are?
Have you read the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/)? It is all pretty basic, innocuous stuff like "let's all agree to get along and if we can't let's discuss it like adults and not maim and kill each other." That's the idea in principle, the execution of this ideal is more problematic. I would be interested in what SPECIFIC ARTICLES of this charter you disagree with.
You also seem to have not posted or responded to my note that United Press International (UPI) is owned, not by the "liberal" Unitarian Universalist Association, but rather by the "conservative" Unification Church who also own the "conservative" Washington Times newspaper.
It may have slipped your notice, but the World Trade Center was not the only place attacked on 9/11. Half of the four planes that were attacking headed for Washington, DC, one of them successfully. Unless you are suggesting that the Pentagon and the White House are UN / Unitarian Universalist controlled I think you are way off base. If Al Quaeda were really going after the UN wouldn't they target the UN Building?
Everyone is entitled to an informed opinion.
- Donald
You had to go and ruin the only good news I found. UPI is indeed owned by a different church. Thank you for the correction.
The United Nations has a number of principles that are not in the charter. Those principle are often in conflict with conservative and religious organizations. One of those is homosexuality that the UU supports. According to the UN any religious that opposes their stand is intolerant and needs to be gotten rid of. That is a declaration of war on certain religions.
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/25/iran12535.htm
“The Conference, meeting in Madrid from 23 to 25 November, 2001 on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief adopted by the General Assembly on 25 November 1981,”
http://193.194.138.190/html/menu2/7/b/cfedu-home.html
That is only one issue. Other NGO’s of the UN adequately represent the UN’s principles. Their pro murder through abortion stance, pro criminal stance, open borders, and other principles put them in opposition of the people of the United States.
In case you do not realize it the United States has been a tool of the United Nations and vise versa. Under Clinton American troops were put in UN uniforms. Bush seems to be at odds with the policies of the United Nations and put our soldiers under NATO command instead. I am not fond of either policy as both subject the United States to foreign rule. I am setting the UN equal to the West as most of the permanent members on the council are western nations..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3476121.stm
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33548
The military and economical complexes were probably a better target than the political target. Al Qaeda may view the United States as the dog that wags the United Nations tail.
You keep moving the goalposts.
You claimed that the Unitarian Universalist Association is the established religion of the United Nations. It demonstrably is not. The UN is non-religious (not anti-religious.) In being critical of the UUA you quoted a passage about the requirements for an organization to be a UN NGO:
Criteria for a NGO with the DPI of the UN
“the NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN and have a clear mission statement with those principles “
I asked you what specific principles of the Charter you found objectionable. You ignored the quote you sited as proof of a conspiratorial mixture of church and state and talk, instead, about other "principles." What the UN, the UUA and all the other NGOs support is tolerance for the views (including religious) of others even when they are not in agreement. This is their goal. It may not always be realized, but such is the nature of humanity.
I couldn't get either of your links to work, but I was able to suss out some of your references. I don't think you are reading the reports correctly. The US sided with Cameroon, China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, and Zimbabwe to deny United Nations consultative status to organizations working to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Iran has the death penalty for homosexual acts, and some of the other countries have draconian penalties for loving someone of the same sex. I understand that you have an alleged biblical justification for the vilification of homosexuals, but how do they hurt or affect your ability to live your life the way you want.
The UN supports the right of individuals to believe anything they wish. What the UN is actively working to eliminate is not people or their beliefs, but the violent physical actions that often result from intolerant attitudes.
It is apparent that you have very strongly held beliefs. In reading your posts you often reference things as if you speak for the collective whole (e.g. conservatives, the religious, the people of the USA.) I suggest you read up on the
No True Scotsman Logical Fallacy. You fall in to this trap a lot. As a Christian you use the bible as your source of wisdom. But which translation? Are all translations divinely inspired? When different translations are in conflict how do you decide which are more correct? I have conservative Christian ministers on both sides of my family and they each believe that their interpretation of the God’s word is correct. They can’t both be correct. This is why the UN and the UUA (among many organizations) emphasize tolerance. Love thy neighbor as thyself.
On a parenthetical note, as it would not be directly related to your post, I would appreciate your biblical references that prohibit abortion. My readings of the bible suggest that it is ambiguous at best and contradictory at worse.
You say: “I am setting the UN equal to the West as most of the permanent members on the council are western nations.”
Since there are only 5 permanent members on the UN council and 3 of them are “western nations” mathematically they are in the majority. A good many conservatives view France as anathema to the United States, it seems somewhat convenient that they get lumped with “our” side or the other whenever it is to the advantage of an argument.
Your final link had me confused. It expressed the UN’s concern that the US felt it should have more power over the UN because it gave more money. The UN’s position is that this is not a democratic principle. As expressed in their Charter each country shall receive one vote. I hope you are not insinuating that those with more should wield more power in governance. That may, effectively, be what we currently have in the US, but is this one of the ideals you espouse?
Everyone is entitled to an informed opinion.
I don’t have any idea what you call an established religion but a religious organization that influences the principle of a government organization and is in turn pledges to carry out those principles sure sounds like an establish religion to me. If the organization allowed all religions to have the same standing then I would be more likely to agree with you. The UN is intolerant first in allowing only those religions that agree with it to become NGO’s and then in declaring hostility toward those religions that disagree with it. Frankly I don’t see much difference between the action of the UN and the actions of the English Empire and it’s established church accept for the tactics used to oppress other religions.
The United Nations is very intolerant of those that disagree with it which is the same of every other despotic organization that has existed. I have never read a translation of the bible that displayed God as being anything but an active God. If you are speaking of the difference in doctrine they are more the result of interpretation differences than differences in the translations. The Supreme Court Justices do the same thing. The United Nations does not seem to understand that people have the right to think and act differently that what the United Nations thinks is right.
The basis is love your neighbor as yourself. It is in a number of scriptures. Tell me when were you were conceived because “you” existed from that point on. The bible is quite clear that a person is conceived before they are born. There is a passages where it speaks of being formed in your mother’s womb and Jeremiah 20:17 speaks of the prophet being killed in his mother’s womb. John the Baptist leaped in his mother’s womb on recognizing Mary’s voice. In Job 39:14-16 the eggs of an ostrich are referred to as her young. Despite what the bible states it appears that it is the science of biology and it’s assurance that the life of an individual organism begins at conception and not the bible is what Christians base their beliefs on.
I do not like the United Nations set up because it is anti republic. I vote for my representatives and they are to support the desires of me and my fellow citizens and not the desires of the United Nations. I don’t agree with the policies of China, Russia, Venezuela, Sudan, Cuba, and many other countries and I do not want them ruling me through the United Nations. I am sure they do not want the United States ruling them either.
Money is a tool. I don’t mind so much when it is used internationally because it is a lot better than using military force. I think that many people who take it probably feel unclean with doing so. I can’t think of a more realistic system for resolving international disagreements. Take the situation in the Palestinian authority. If we fund Hamas then we are funding an organization that has pledged to eradicate Israel. Do you think they will change their mind because of their good nature.
Once again, don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. There are dozens of Christian (Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.), Jewish, Muslim and other Religious NGOs associated with the UN. I'm sure they are all part of the UUA conspiracy to elimate all right thinking religions off the face of the earth.
You said: "Frankly I don’t see much difference between the action of the UN and the actions of the English Empire and it’s established church accept for the tactics used to oppress other religions" You're absolutely right. Oh, except for the part where the British Empire actively attempted to convert folks to the Church of England and beheaded those who wouldn't. The UN is made up of people of every major religion on earth and IT IS IN ITS CHARTER that freedom to practice the religion of your choice is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT!
Radical concept: County is to State as State is to Country as Country is to UN. The UN can easily be viewed as a supra-national republic. If you can accept having people in Texas or California or Kansas have a say in what your country does why is it such a stretch of the imagination to use the same reasoning for a collection of countries all working together for the benefit of humanity?
I don't diagree that money is a tool, but that wasn't the question. In a democracy should people with more money have more influence than people with less money? Is this Animal Farm (Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others?)
I didn't even begin to exist until there was a functioning cortex. When that functioning cortex dies I will cease to exist, as will you. The scientific investigations into the effects of brain trauma clearly show that there is purely a physical component to the definition of "who" a person is.
Ah, a biblical literalist. There is no point in attempting a rational dialogue with you. Evidence shall not persuade. The bible holds no contradictions or wrong information. Errors in fact are waved aside as metaphors.
Use your eyes so you may see, use your ears so you may hear, use your mind so you may reason, use your heart so you may have compassion.
Everyone is entitled to an informed opinion.
Those religions have a major problem in that they have to conform their religious teaching to those taught by the United Nations. Jehovah’s Witnesses were an NGO of the United Nations until it was discovered by the members of their church and the leadership was called on hypocrisy. Reverend Moon’s and his associated membership attempted to gain entry but were stopped because certain individuals feared his power to change the United Nations.
“At a time when many are asking questions about who NGOs represent and what role they should have in global governance, we must carefully examine this newcomer, especially since it lays claim to broad international legitimacy.”
Sounds like someone is speaking of world government to me. Who ever is pointing at Bush making the United States and Empire should look at the U.N. and his attempts to influence it by money. In fact if I think about it we are accomplishing the U.N.’s plans for world democracy in both Afghanistan and Iraq and less directly in the Lebanon, The Palestinian Authority, and other parts of the Middle East.
Beheading those who disagree with you is a tactic used to discourage disagreement. Another tactic could be public ridicule. So I was not incorrect when comparing the UN to the British Empire. The fact that people from every major religion are members is irrelevant to whether the UN persecutes those that disagree with it as traitors exist and they could be traitors.
If it is not money then it will be something else. In Animal Farm the Pigs became Men as they filled the power vacuum left by man’s overthrow. The capitalist system works poorly but at least it works. Communism where everyone is treated the same seems to suffer from encouraging mediocrity and there was still a ruling class in USSR.
You are redefining what is means to be a human being. Traditionally all it took to be a human being is to be alive and belong to the homo sapient race. Colonial Americans held the thinking began at birth and yet they considered a human being still within his/her mother’s womb had the right to life. William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” went so far as to stay a pregnant woman would be granted a stay of execution until her child was born because it was barbaric to execute the child with the mother. Induced abortion and assault on a woman that killed her child were also considered crimes. They did consider that an unborn child was a slave of his/her mother and so the penalty for kill hi/her was less that killing the same child after they were born. Redefining the meaning of human being is prohibited by the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 6. Which reads “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.”
Sources about religious NGO’s of the United Nations
http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/analysis/1101moon.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/ngo-un/rest-un/2001/1030j.htm
"Thanks to the U.U. we have the Muslim brotherhood that like Christians object to attacks on their religious rights. The Muslim Brotherhood under the nomenclature of Al Qaeda has attacked Western (International Community) interests a number of times including the World Trade Towers on 9/11. Anyone notice the word “World” as compared to the missing word “American” in the name. The HQ for the United Nations is located in New York City which makes it a nice primary target for Al Qaeda."
WHAT IN GOD'S NAME ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? The Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda are two completely different groups -- they share certain ideologies, yes, but they peaked in power at different points and now have different roles and identities. You clearly don't know a thing about the Middle East. Your connection between the U.U. and the Brotherhood is borderline psychotic, and if the U.N. gave birth to and is allied with Al Qaeda, why would Al Qaeda make NYC one of its primary targets?
This is a bizarre and nonsensical argument. I really hope that no one who reads your blog believes it.
JS,
Al-Qaeda and The Muslim Brotherhood are two different organizations that are linked in ideology but separated by the public tactics they choose to use. The Muslim Brotherhood provides a mechanism for “providing both the ideological and technical capacities for supporting terrorist finance on a global basis”
My sources are:
http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369939
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.102/pub_detail.asp
Post a Comment
<< Home