No Rights for Resisters

From UNESCO’s

Declaration
of Principles on Tolerance:

“Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation
of the rich diversity of our world’s cultures… It is not only a moral
duty, it is also a political and legal requirement.”
 [Including
dangerous lifestyles that clash with our faith?]

“Tolerance involves the rejection of dogmatism
and absolutism….”
[Biblical truth?]

“Tolerance… means that one’s views are not
to be imposed on others.”
[Would this end freedom
to share the gospel with others? Could the UN still share its views?]

“Intolerance… is a global threat.”[1]

---

David Parker didn’t want his 6-year-old
son indoctrinated with homosexual values in his kindergarten class. Claiming
what he thought were his parental rights, he told school officials to let his
child to opt-out of the lessons and classroom discussions on gay marriage. But
his request was denied. During a scheduled
meeting with the principal and the city’s Director of Education on April 27,
the father was arrested. Charged with “trespassing” at his son’s elementary
school, he spent the night in jail. The same day, the father wrote the following
statement:

“I, David Parker, am the father of a kindergarten
student at Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Massachusetts. Since
the beginning of this school year, my wife and I have learned that school
materials and discussions about gay-headed households/same-sex union issues
have been exposed to the children. There are definitive plans to increase
the teacher/staff/adult mediated discussions of these subjects.

“We have officially stated on many occasions—to the Lexington school administration—a
request that we be notified when these discussions are planned, and want
our 6-year-old opted out of such situations when arising ‘spontaneously’.

“Our parental requests for our own child were flat-out denied with no effort
at accommodation. In our meeting on April 27, I insisted that such accommodation
be made and refused to leave the meeting room. I was informed that I would
be arrested.”[2]

“This is an unbelievable outrage,” said
Brian Camenker, a friend and Newton, Mass. parent. “It’s where last year’s same-sex
‘marriage’ ruling has brought us.”[2]

Such assaults on freedom have multiplied lately.
In fact, the “rights” Americans have taken for granted have become increasingly
fragile. Earlier this year, the

University of Colorado told Professor
Phil Mitchell, a Christian who has a doctorate in American social history, that
his contract would not be renewed after this year.

A winner of the prestigious SOAR
Award for teacher of the year, Mitchell was accused of being racist. “‘That
would have come as a surprise to my black children,’ said Mitchell, who has
nine children, two of them adopted African-Americans.”[3]

Yet, the

University of Colorado continues
to defend the right of “free speech” for its controversial liberal professor
Ward Churchill, now a hero to staff and students who share his hatred for America.
In his
recent article, “An
ill-bred Professor, and a bad situation,”
David Horowitz compares his
own cool reception at the Honolulu campus
of the University of Hawaii with the exuberant celebration of the revolutionary
professor from Colorado:

“The student who invited me
to the University on behalf of the College Republicans — I will call him
Jamie — is a political science major. In anticipation of my visit, Jamie
had asked Professor Hiller if his Department would be one of the sponsors
of my talk and if the Department would host a reception for me. …

   
“…the only reason Professor
Hiller consented to the first request was because

Ward Churchill had spoken at the University
weeks before to a very bad press. In fact to propitiate the backlash was
the only reason the university itself put up a modest honorarium for my
speech. The agenda was to show how ‘diverse’ and ‘fair’ they were. …

   
“Before Churchill arrived
professors in political science and other departments vied with each other
for the honor of introducing him, and attended in droves, and encouraged
their students to do likewise. No professors showed up for my speech. Instead
there were about forty protesters who brought signs saying ‘No academic
freedom for fascists’ and similar slogans.”[4]

These cases fit the pattern established through
the United Nations more than half a century ago. On December 10, 1948, its General
Assembly adopted the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and
called the participating countries “to cause it to be disseminated, displayed,
read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions,
without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories.”[5]

At first glance, the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights sounds good, as do all the intrusive UN human rights treaties.
Article 18 upholds “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion…”
Article 19 affirms “the right to freedom of opinion and expression… and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers.”

But Article 29 states that “these rights and
freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles
of the United Nations.” In other words, these “rights” or “freedoms” don’t
apply to those who would criticize the UN or its policies. Your rights would
be conditioned on your compliance. Only if your message supports official ideology
are you free to speak it. As Andrei Vishinsky wrote in The Law of the Soviet
State, “There can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for
the foes of socialism.”[6]

Article 29 also warns us that “In the exercise
of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations
as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition
and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the
just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic
society.

Do you wonder whose morality would best
serve the “general welfare in a democratic society”? Should the “right” of the
homosexual not to be offended supersede the right of Christians to warn others
about the deadly dangers of the gay lifestyle? Or should the rights of public
school teachers to present immoral or occult lessons in their classrooms supersede
the right of concerned parents to protect their children?

The last question was raised in San Ramon, California
back in 1988, when parents opposed the classroom use of R-rated movies. The
movies were stopped-for a season. But four teachers, the local teacher’s union,
and the California Teachers Association sued the school board and superintendent
for (1) violating their constitutional right to free speech in the classroom
and (2) for allegedly heeding the religious view of a small minority of citizens.
The teachers won. On May 18, 1990, a California Superior Court decided that
a teacher’s constitutional rights supersede the concerns of parents and the
school board.[7]

Like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child uses manipulative and misleading language.
According to Article 13, “The child shall have the right to freedom of expression;
this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and
ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers…”[8]
In other words, parents have no authority to keep a child from reading a sexually
explicit magazine or visiting pagan chat rooms on the Internet.

While parents are losing their traditional right
to set safe boundaries for their children, the State assumes full power to “protect”
the child from contrary parents and define the rules. Thus Article 13 concludes
with: “This right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only
be such as are provided by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or
reputations of others; or for protection of national security or public order.”

Keep in mind, “national security or public order”
is based on the UN vision of
social solidarity, a socialist oneness in which
shared values are defined by globalist leaders. In their minds, anything less
than solidarity in every community could stir conflict or incite violence. In
this context, dissenters become foes; absolute beliefs or facts that clash with
its vision of unity become threats; and the uncompromising truths of biblical
Christianity become intolerable — even dangerous — to public safety.
[See The
Re-establishment of Peacetime Society]

Likewise, if parents restrict their child’s “right
to freedom of association” or their child’s ambiguous rights to “privacy” or
“conscience and religion” (Articles
14 -16), they would break the
new rules and risk losing their child to the state’s “protection” services.
That’s already happing in Europe. With our Supreme Court seeking guidelines
from international decisions, it may soon happen here.[9]
See

Ban truth – Reap Tyranny

But, you might argue, the U.S. never ratified
the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child. It doesn’t really matter. A December
10, 1998 White House Press Release  stated that “on the historic anniversary
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, President Clinton announced several
policy initiatives to advance human rights at home and abroad.” It was accompanied
by a “Human Rights Executive Order that strengthens our efforts to implement
human rights treaties, and creates an Administration Working Group to coordinate
these efforts.”

The President summarized the scope of his

Executive Order 13107 (“The Implementation
of Human Rights Treaties”) in its opening paragraph:

“By the authority vested in me as President
by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and bearing
in mind the obligations of the United States pursuant to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention Against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD),
and other relevant treaties concerned with the protection
and promotion of human rights to which the United States is now or may
become a party in the future, it is hereby ordered….”[10]

Notice that it includes “other relevant treaties
concerned with the protection and promotion of human rights…” Considering
today’s flexible legal climate, it could easily be interpreted to include such
unratified treaties as
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as
well as other treaties “to which” we “may become party in the future.” As you
read its precepts below, consider this question: does this Executive Order protects
human “rights” or does it pave the way for oppressive “responsibilities” to
the state?

SECTION 1(a) commits the U.S. “fully to
respect and implement its obligations under the international human rights treaties
to which it is a party, including the ICCPR, the CAT, and the CERD.”

SECTION  4 establishes “an Interagency
Working Group on Human Rights Treaties for the purpose of providing guidance,
oversight, and coordination with respect to questions concerning the adherence
to and implementation of human rights obligations and related matters.” It would
be chaired by the “designee of the Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs.”

The functions of this Interagency Working
Group would include “(iv) developing effective mechanisms to ensure that
legislation proposed by the Administration is reviewed for conformity with international
human rights obligations and that these obligations are taken into account in
reviewing legislation under consideration by the Congress as well;”

Apparently, the United Nations and its Human
Rights treaties would replace the U.S. Constitution as our main standard and
filter for legal action.

SECTION 4(v) calls for “mechanisms for
improving the monitoring of the actions by the various States, Commonwealths,
and territories of the United States… for their conformity with relevant treaties,
the provision of relevant information for reports and other monitoring
purposes, and the promotion of effective remedial mechanisms;”

Compare this Executive Order with UNESCO’s
Declaration
of Principles on Tolerance. It, too, called for monitoring: “analysis
of root causes [of intolerance] and effective countermeasures, as well as research
and monitoring….”[1]

The monitoring will, in part, be made effective
through the new “mental health screening” of children, youth and new mothers.
First implemented in Illinois, it doesn’t end there.
According to Dr. Lawrence D. Cuddy,
“Leslie LaPrise (Information Center Manager for the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration of the federal Department of Health and Human
Services) sent an e-mail stating that  ‘all the states are moving toward
implementation of the New Freedom Commission report.'”[11]

The last two points in UNESCO’s
Declaration
on Tolerance call for “rational tolerance teaching methods that will
address the cultural, social, economic, political and religious sources of intolerance-major
roots of violence and exclusion.” No person would be free from the duty to conform
to UN standards through its manipulative program for “shaping… attitudes of
openness, mutual listening and solidarity in schools and universities, and through
non-formal education… at home and in the workplace.”[1]

The main enemy to the new global solidarity is
Biblical Christianity with its absolute truths and moral standards. Unless Christianity
puts on a more inclusive face and is willing to conform to the new rules for
global solidarity, it will be persecuted. As UNESCO’s

Declaration on the Role of Religion in the Promotion
of a Culture of Peace tells us:
“Our communities of faith have a responsibility
to encourage conduct imbued with wisdom, compassion, sharing, charity, solidarity,
and love; inspiring one and all to choose the path of freedom and responsibility.
Religions must be a source of helpful energy.”[12]

Sure enough. Christianity is reinventing itself.
In the international arena, vast Christian networks now work hand in glove with
UN aims to screen, monitor and remediate (through the dialectic process in facilitated
small groups) every human resource around the world. [See
“The
Global quest for Solidarity“] 
While the UN measures the outcomes in individual communities under the banner
of “social capital,” church management systems simply build the now standard
data tracking systems for human resource development and placement for service. 
Meanwhile, parents and children who refuse to conform can expect increasing
pressure and
persecution.[13] 
[See “Spiritual
Gifts and Community Service” &
“Dealing
with Resisters“]

“If you were of the
world, the world would love its own,” said Jesus. “Yet because you are not of
the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you….
If they persecuted Me they will persecute you… for they do not know the One
who sent Me.” 



John 15:19-21

 

The Bible doesn’t deal
with civil or “human rights” the way we do. When people trusted God and followed
His ways, He protected them. True, He gave them certain rights (property rights,
parental rights, etc) in accordance with the personal and civil guidelines written
in His law. They enjoyed peace and freedom for a season —  until they
forgot His laws and shifted their trust from His mighty power to their own puny
strength. When Israel, as a nation, forgot His Word and drifted into idolatry,
He allowed their enemies to abolish their freedom, oppress the people, and drive
them into exile. At that point, they had no “rights” to claim before God or
earthly rulers. [See
Deut 8:10-20]

The “rights” we claim as Americans were granted us by our sovereign God who
worked through benevolent leaders. Those “rights” protected us within a legal
framework — as long as we, as a nation, loved and trusted Him. But now everything
is changing.

As the world pursues false visions of unity and universal “human rights” —
designed to serve those who hate our God and love what He forbids — we must
trust in something better than “human rights.” Our hope is in a wonderful God
who never changes! When we know His Word, take our stand on His firm promises,
and delight in following His way, we can confidently echo the words of the apostle
Paul: “…thanks be to God who always leads us in triumph in Christ…”
 2
Corinthians 2:14

The answer to the age-old question raised by the author of Psalm 2 is no longer
hidden. But we are free in Christ, no matter how fiercely the spiritual war
rages all around us:

“Why do the nations rage, and the people
plot a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together
against the Lord… saying,
‘Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us.”
He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall hold them in derision.

Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, and distress them in His deep
displeasure….

“Now therefore, be wise, O kings; be instructed,
you judges of the earth.
Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling….
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.” Psalm 2:1-12

---

Next: Screening
“Social & Emotional Development”

See also “A
New Way of Thinking”
and

Three Myths of Homeschooling

No Place to Hide” and “Dealing
with Resisters“

---

ENDNOTES

1. UNESCO’s
Declaration of Principles on Tolerance at

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/globalism/Tolerance.htm

2. “Lexington, Mass., father of 6-year-old arrested.” For more
information, contact: Brian Camenker, Article 8 Alliance at


http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/parker/parker_press_release.htm
3.


Colorado to dump Christian prof
at


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43206

4. David
Horowitz, “An
ill-bred Professor, and a bad situation“
at

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43206

5.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights at
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

6. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1968), Volume V, page 164.

7. I attended a San Ramon community forum convened to discuss
this issue and talked with parents and teachers involved.

8. “UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child” at
http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm

9. “Ban
truth – Reap Tyranny” at

www.crossroad.toarticles22003ban-truth.htm

10.

http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1998/12/11/4.text.2
This link was accessible in 1999, but was apparently removed at the end of the
Clinton administration.

11. Dr.
Lawrence D. Cuddy, “Mental
Health, Education and Social Control, Part 7”
at

http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis23.htm

12. “UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child” at
http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm

13. See “Spiritual
Gifts and Community Service” at

www.crossroad.toarticles245-purpose-gifts.htm

---

Home
|
Armor of God |
Persecution
| His Word
| Articles