 |
By Berit Kjos |
 |
Home | The UN Plan for Your Mental Health |
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
allow 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. 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 “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 theHonolulu
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 “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 the 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 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 supersedes 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 Internet.While parents lose their 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.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 child to the state’s “protection” services.
That’s already that happing in Europe. With our Supreme Court seeking
guidelines from international decisions, it may soon happen here.[9]
See
Ban truth – Reap TyrannyBut, 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…” In
other words, it would 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 whether this executive
order protects human “rights” or oppressive “responsibilities.”SECTION 1(a) commits the U.S. to “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 it 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 carried out by the
new
“mental health screening” programs of children 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.'” Cuddy, Mental Health, Education and
Social Control, Part 7The 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.”[11]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.
[12]
[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 answer to the age-old
question raised by the author of Psalm 2 is no longer
hidden. But the spiritual battle rages as fiercely as
ever: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 dus 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 1:1-12
See also “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 Contact: Brian Camenker, Article 8 Alliance,
781-899-4905 and go to
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. “UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child” at
http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm
12. See “Spiritual
Gifts and Community Service” at
www.crossroad.toarticles2 45-purpose-gifts.htm
Home |
Armor of God |
Persecution
| His Word |
Articles