Your Brother Daniel
For more great blogs as
this one go to Daniel’s blog site at: www.Mannsword.blogspot.com
The
UN, Parents, Children’s Rights, and the Catholic Church
Under the guise of the
“protection of children,” the United Nations’ Committee on the Rights of the Child under precept #26 recommends
that:
· The Holy See bring all its laws and regulations
as well as its policies and practices in conformity and make full use of its
moral authority to condemn all forms of harassment, discrimination or violence
against children based on their sexual orientation or the sexual orientation of
their parents and to support efforts at international level for the
decriminalisation of homosexuality.
By promoting a highly
self-destructive lifestyle that, according to surveys, shortens the male
homosexuals’ life by 20-24 years, the UN has lost all credibility, especially
in light of the fact that real human rights violations – namely, the genocide
of religious minorities in many Islamic countries - are vainly crying out for
attention.
In their mindless dash
to enforce gay rights, the UN has ignored many of the costs:
1. Attenuated lifespan
2. The Proliferation of STDs, Substance Abuse,
Suicide, Mental Illness Endemic to this Lifestyle.
3. The Fact that all of the Major World Religions
have Ruled against it
4. The Historical Evidence that this Lifestyle
Produces a Dead End
5. The Suppression of the Freedoms of Speech and
Religion to Achieve this End
6. The Resulting Gender Confusion and
Sexualization of Children
7. The Breakdown of Values that have Produced the
Greatest Civilizations.
Of course, the
Committee knows better than their own parents regarding the welfare of children
and has demonstrated that it is more than willing to limit parental rights in
favor of their own “enlightened” agenda:
· #32. The Committee reminds the Holy See that
the right of children to freely express their views constitutes one of the most
essential components of children’s dignity and that ensuring this right is a
legal obligation under the Convention, which leaves no leeway for the
discretion of the States parties… (c) Encourage, through legislation and
policy, opportunities for parents and guardians to listen to children and give
due weight to their views in matters that concern them and promote parenting
education programmes, which build on existing positive behaviours and
attitudes.
Who is to determine
these “positive behaviours and attitudes?” The UN, of course, and the parents
and church must fall in line and submit to “opportunities for parents and
guardians to listen to children and give due weight to their views!” While the
UN hypocritically champions the free speech of children, it extends no such
privilege to their parents other than re-education. Indeed, we have a lot of
prior horrific experience with States that claim that they know what is best
for children and therefore limit parental influence:
· Lenin had said: “The best revolutionary is a
youth devoid of morals.” His word being law in Communist organizations, all
members work secretly to make young people of both sexes anti-social and
immoral. Children up to teen-age are taught to rebel against the discipline of
the home. Parents are represented to their children as old-fashioned. Parental
authority is scoffed at. The subverters argue that parents have lied to their
children since they were old enough to listen, regarding Santa Claus and where
babies come from. The subversives claims parents are the victims of reactionary
teachings and capitalistic exploitation. The child is encouraged to educate the
parents in regard to modern and progressive ideas. They are warned that, for
their own good, they must refuse to be dominated or disciplined by their
parents. The purpose of this subversive campaign is to destroy the sanctity,
and unity, of the home which is the foundation upon which our civilization is
founded.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Communism/moral_decay.htm
If parental influence
can be neutralized, what then is left to influence our children? The sexualizing
influence of the culture – the permissive, morally-relativistic schools and the
morally-indulgent media! Meanwhile, parents must only listen to their children
and give their words and desires full respect.
Discipline? Forget it!
Our children are free moral agents, according to the UN, and what we teach our
children better reflect this:
· #40. The Committee reminds the Holy See that
all forms of violence against children, however light, are unacceptable and
that the Convention leaves no room for any level of violence against children…
ensure that an interpretation of Scripture as not condoning corporal punishment
is reflected in Church teaching and other activities and incorporated into all
theological education and training.
While the UN demands
that children have their say, it is not as accommodating to their parents or
their religion. Evidently, the UN has reached such a state of enlightenment
that it can confidently dictate to us how we are to understand and teach the
Bible.
The UN demands to reign
supreme over all areas of the family – religion, education, values, the works.
After all, “He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future,” as Adolph Hitler
confidently professed. How then does the world government own the youth? By making
itself the supreme authority in all family matters:
· #41. The Committee is concerned about the Holy
See’s position that civil authorities should intervene in the family setting
only in cases where a proven abuse has been committed in order not to interfere
with the duties and rights of the parents.
The UN demands the
right to intervene whenever! How can the UN demand such authority? Has it been
able to shed the gentle light of reason in these areas? Has it demonstrated
that it is the better and more loving caretaker of our children?
In contrast, the wise
King Solomon knew a critical truth about mothers. When two women came before
him, each claiming maternity over a certain baby, Solomon ordered that the baby
be cut in two – one part given to each claimant. At this, the real mother cried
out:
· “Please, my lord, give her the living baby!
Don’t kill him!” But the other said, “Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him
in two!” Then the king gave his ruling: “Give the living baby to the first
woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother.” (1 Kings 3:26-27)
The UN is the “other”
claimant. It does not love the children as the real mother and will allow their
destruction in order to promote its blind and tyrannical agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment