Saturday, March 14, 2009

Are "Human Rights" "Gay Rights"? Pt. 2

As stated in Are "Human Rights" "Gay Rights"?, the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (UDHR) has taken front and center in a debate over whether The Church Of God In Christ (COGIC) should or should not have signed onto or endorsed the document. Please note that my interest here is not to "bring down" a church or call an individuals (specifically Presiding Bishop Blake's) personal integrity into question. I don't feel that either of those efforts are in the best interest of Christianity in general, however the purpose here is to foster helpful dialogue and provide necessary information as COGIC members and friends examine the issue of the UDHR and what it means to our church, the nation and to all Christian churches in general.

The difficulty of this debate stems over the recognition of injustice in the world and what the church can and should do about that injustice. To be honest, we will have to admit that there are certain injustices that take place and that have taken place against groups of people almost since the beginning of human history. The whole "civil rights" era in the United States focused on the injustice that lingered from the practice of slavery within American society.

The part of this debate that is problematic, is not so much the acknowledgement of injustice, but the segment of individuals that this declaration has repeatedly been used to focus on. That is the homosexual right. While fighting against job discrimination, for equal housing, healthcare access and all the liberties that one should be afforded as a human being, (ie: Human Right), the homosexual lobby has clearly and methodically invoked the UDHR as a means and method of bringing the fight for moral sexual equality into national, international and even world courts.


A Little History:

According to the University Of Minnesota's Human Rights Center,

"The UDHR was drafted in reaction to the inhumanity committed during World War II. Like Jews, gypsies, and the disabled, gay men and lesbians were singled out by the Nazis for slave labor and extermination. As many as 100,000 gay men were sent to the concentration camps where they were killed or worked to death. They were required to wear pink triangles, a symbol that has since come to stand for the international gay rights movement. Several thousand lesbians, considered "anti-social elements" and forced to wear black triangles, met similar fates." The study also notes that "Despite these atrocities, the UDHR contains no specific guarantees of fundamental human rights regardless of sexual orientation."

Special Note: It would seem that even the General Board of our great church was misinformed regarding this point. The General Board Of Bishop's statement in support of the UDHR endorsement shows complete obliviousness to this vital and crucial information. In fact you will see this caveat referenced nowhere on the COGIC web site.
At heart we have a fundamental societal challenge that has some dangerous underpinnings. The church should fight for the poor, disenfranchised, and for those suffering injustices and discrimination when those struggles are about righting the wrongful effects of sin that exist in the world. That in my book is a given and certainly within the mission of the Christian church. However, that is a far cry from struggling for behaviors that are both immoral and unbiblical.

Comparing The Discrimination Experienced
Because Of The Color Of Skin
Doesn't Equate To The Struggle For Sin!


The New "Unequal" Class Of "Sexual Minority"???

Through the use and implementation of the UDHR a new class of "separate and unequal" individuals have been identified called the "Sexual Minority". This is where the "tire meets the road" with the UDHR, because the UDHR is and has been increasingly used to fight for this class of sexual minority on the basis of equality and ultimately "human rights".

Isn't it also true that pedophiles are sexual minorities? What about rapists? They are sexual minorities also. Then there are a host of other sexual relationships that are condemned both by the state and the bible. Many of these classes including polygamists, bigamists, swingers, the polyamorous are all "sexual minorities". Taking the UDHR literally, which is the only way that it can be taken, all classes of sexually deviant behaviors, such as sadomasticist, dominatrix, and even "johns" who visit prostitutes, can be described as "sexual minorities". The only problem is that the law does not facilitate certain classes of sexual minorities based on current societal standards of morality. Under the UDHR, however all it takes is mass appeal for a certain behavior and it could become a "human right".

How Has The UDHR Been Used?

Although I alluded to how the UDHR could potentially be used in my previous post because of it's broad language, there is actual history of how it has been used to promote and allow certain aspects of "gay rights" claiming that they are simultaneously "human rights". Here are a few examples:

  • In Canada, that nation's Supreme Court ruled that when the Alberta legislature omitted sexual orientation from the province's anti-discrimination laws, it was violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court ruled that such protection should be read into the law. (Article 8 of the UDHR describes the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental human rights granted by the constitution or the law.)
Those with varying "sexual orientation" had to be supported and given consideration as a class of individuals under Canadian law because the country was bound by the standards of the UDHR.

  • In Colombia, the Constitutional Court decreed that private religious schools cannot ban gay students and that firing gay teachers is unconstitutional. (Article 26 of the UDHR says everyone has the right to education.)
In this case the UDHR was invoked to change the practice of private religious schools especially as it pertains to what was conferred as "human rights" to gay students and teachers within institutions who held doctrinal beliefs against such behaviors.

  • In 1994, the UN Human Rights Committee (the body that upholds the International Bill Of Human Rights (IBHR)~ which is the flow INTO entity of the UDHR) ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual acts in the Australian state of Tasmania violated Australia's obligations under Articles 2 (non-discrimination) and 17 (right to privacy) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 1997, Tasmania repealed its anti-gay law.
Once again, we have a country that is bound by the UDHR and it's offspring document, the IBHR, that changes and modifies its laws for the entire country to be in harmony with the UDHR document.

The problem is that the UDHR has been invoked to create a level of moral equality resulting in normalizing homosexual activity in particular. Through the UDHR tendencies and preferences take precedent over established, functioning, and exclusive moral values while simultaneously blurring if not obliterating the line and definition of Christian and biblical moral rights in particular. In essence the UDHR has been used and continues to be used to remove rights from individuals and organizations that hold moral values on a higher scale.

Yes, we are going there. in some way shape or form we are heading into a universally sanctioned "human right" for the sexual minority" class of homosexual. Need I remind you what our President stated during his campaign for office:



"I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex – nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the sermon on the mount."

~Sen. Barack H. Obama (Now President)

The Moral Re engineering Of Our Children

As noted in my previous post, "When "Gay Day" Comes Your Way~The Homosexual Rite Becomes Law" one of the areas of growing interest is childhood education and especially early childhood education (ECE). President Obama has declared his resolve to focus on ECE and to revamp the complete educational system of America. As noted on ABC's 20/20 program with John Stossel on Friday March 13th, 2009 the greatest current push of the national educational system is to create and require what is called Universal Pre-K. Although pre-K is currently available to all it is not mandatory for all and neither is it a requirement to be enrolled in a national brand of educational Pre-K. What 20/20 did not go into great detail about was that current efforts will use Pre-K as a forum to begin the educational indoctrination of children centered around what is and will become a national education agenda. Undoubtedly, that agenda will not and can not be shaped apart from the UDHR or the UN Council's directives on human rights.

This is all particularly interesting as we take special note of the group Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund who holds that "human rights" education and awareness should take front and center within our schools because of the recognition of a growing number of cases of physical abuse and harm against "sexual minorities". In fact, their annual event, known as ALLY Week is an effort to teach children as young as Kindergarten that "sexual minorities" are only diversities within society consequently concluding that the morality of such individuals should not be questioned or compared to traditional norms and the safety of sexual minorities should be undertaken by those who are in the sexual majority.

What hasn't been said up until this point is that there is also a UDHR for children. Yes that's right, the concepts and language are broken down so that even a child can understand what's being said. Let's do a little comparison between the child and adult versions to see if there are additional insights gained from the document itself:


Adult Version: Article 1 ~ All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Child Version: Article 1~ All human beings are born free and equal. You are worth the same, and have the same rights as anyone else. You are born with the ability to think and to know right from wrong, and should act toward others in a spirit of friendliness.

Notice that Article one establishes the principle of human morality. the adult version calls this being "endowed with reason and conscience", while the child version states that we "are born with the ability to think and to know right from wrong". In essence one can know morality without having to know the moral law giver. Morality is something that one is born with NOT that one learns either through religious or societal experience.


Adult Version: Declaration 16 which says: (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State

Child Version: Declaration 16: 1) Grown men and women have the right to marry and start a family, without anyone trying to stop them or make it hard because of their race, country, or religion. Both partners have equal rights in getting married, during the marriage, and if and when they decide to end it. 2) A marriage shall take place only with the agreement of the couple. 3) The family is the basic part of society, and should be protected by it.

Notice the language of the child version changes to "partners have equal rights in getting married" as opposed to "they are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage" Subtle but quite effective technique of language acceptance going on. One of the false assumptions about this statement is that reading of "Men and Women have the right to marry". This simply states just that. The declaration DOES NOT restrict endorse or encourage men and women to marry one another cross-gender or otherwise. This is totally open to the exercise of the individuals free and unfettered rights ie: human right.



Adult Version: Article 18 ~ Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Child Version: Article 18 ~ You have the right to believe the things you want to believe, to have ideas about right and wrong, and to believe in any religion you want. This includes the right to change your religion if you want, and to practice it without anybody interfering.

This article changes the language in the child version to "and to practice it (religion) without anybody interfering". In other words evangelization is a definite NO-NO under this document (at least in the kids version) Further, far from being religious neutral which is what one would assume would be best, the document establishes the right of practice of religion. For some this is a good thing, but notice that it comes with a price and a deal with the devil himself...Now, we understand that modern religion especially Islam has been the source of many modern problems as it pertains to the promotion of Sharia Law. One could say that the intent of the article is to address Islam, but notice that the article IS NOT restricted to the practice of any religion. Therefore, the practice of Christianity is certainly included in these guidelines. The question is can the Christian, by virtue of the Great Commission not "interfere" in the practice of any other religion? Is our call to remain silent and friendly as it pertains to truth?

Adult Version: Article 26 ~ (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Child Version: Article 26 ~ 1) Everyone has the right to an education. It should be free of charge, and should be required for all, at least in the early years. Later education for jobs and college has to be there for anyone who wants it and is able to do it. 2) The idea of education is to help people become the best they can be. It should teach them to respect and understand each other, and to be kind to everyone, no matter who they are or where they are from. Education should help to promote the activities of the United Nations in an effort to create a peaceful world.

In this article the educational system "shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace." in the child version "teach them to respect and understand each other, and to be kind to everyone, no matter who they are or where they are from. Education should help to promote the activities of the United Nations in an effort to create a peaceful world." Pardon me if I sound like a conspiracy theorist here but this sure sounds as if the only thing that our education should promote is the furtherance of the United Nations effort to create a "peaceful world"...Therefore all human efforts are reduced to these efforts. WOW!

Daniel 8:25 ~ "25-And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."

Further, the direction that the church was to take was to be able to teach what Jesus said. The concepts that the church was to bring to the world are concepts of Christ, not ecumenism for it is ONLY through the gospel that men and women are saved and set free from their sins. our command superceeds the UDHR articles and tenents of tolerance and peace:

Mt. 28:19-20 ~ "19-Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20-Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

The message of the church is a life saving message that may and will cause divisions for the sake of truth:


Romans 1:16 ~ "16-For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."


Removing Human Emotion From Concepts Of Biblical Truth

The part that is confusing to many is that the UDHR plays upon human emotions. Christians want to see individuals benefitted and treated rightly according to both human and biblical standards. The UDHR allows immoral standards to "piggyback" upon it therefore causing it to be the standard bearer for some wrong, unjust and immoral causes.

One is reminded to look at what the scripture teaches about such agreements that are broad in frame, inclusive and not based upon biblical absolutes.
Deut.12:29-32 ~ "29-When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; 30-Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31-Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. 32-What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."
Prov.6:2 ~ "Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth."
Prov. 22:26-28 ~ "26-Be not thou one of them that strike hands (enter into or make agreements), or of them that are sureties for debts. 27-If thou hast nothing to pay, why should he take away thy bed from under thee? 28-Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set."
One thing is for sure that within secular, worldly, and universal documents that uplift mankind there are bound to be problems both in application, useage and the ultimate carrying out resolutions to maintain spiritual integrity. In fact biblical consistencies DO NOT exist in worldly and non-Christ centered documents no matter how well they claim to uphold humanity. Why? Because these documents are not based on the true moral law giver or HIS word of truth. The system is under the influence of the enemy of our souls:
1 John 2:15 ~ "15-Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."
John 18:36a ~ "36-"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world:..."
Summary & Questions:

It goes without saying that this topic is one that must be addressed and redressed within our church and society in general. It would seem that with the use of the UDHR that America is on an inevitable course to relieve whatever soveriegnty that it has left and deliver more power and authority to the United Nations as a whole. It is disconcerting that in light of all of this the church has directly become captive to the document and it's tenents and case law because of it's desire to serve humanity on a more broad and recognizeable scale. These are actions, in my opinion, that nether God nor HIS word favors as it pertains to the place, position and mission of the church to the world.
Through the examination of the UDHR and how it's message is proliferated, we better observe the "mystery of iniquity" that now works and the system by which one of it's elements is proliferated.
2 Thess. 2:7-12 ~ "7-For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8-And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9-Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10-And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11-And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12-That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
In the forum of world courts and councils, which are bereft of God and HIS council, we cannot find safety, shelter or direction as it pertains to the will of God and the direction of our church.
Prov. 14:12 ~ "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."
The positions and alignment of the Church Of God In Christ with this document and other world treaties should be immediately examined and in the best case COGIC hands should be withdrawn from such documents and ecumenical efforts that weakens our base and our constituency both in our native land and abroad. Further, in our effort to become all things to all men, we should not forget who we are and what we have become to those millions who live sacrifically adhering to the biblical teachings of holiness (Heb. 12:14). It is to that household that we first owe a great debt and special gratitude of service.
Galations 6:10 ~ "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith."

Could the UDHR be used to fight for immoral behavior?

YES. When it is invoked to fight for homosexuality under the guise of the homosexual being a "sexual minority" it's is doing just that.


Could the UDHR be used to fight for other types of sexually deviant behavior?
YES, and as it stands there is no limitation to what it can be used to fight for as long as the "state" or nation endorses certain behaviors. In fact the specific language of the declaration is:
Article 2. ~Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind,

In other words, without any distinctions "of any kind", the UDHR sets the standard for morality without naming any potential activity. The standards are based on what society dictates, what people agree to and what the courts, sometimes without legislative actions, mandate.

This should shed some light on WHY in the face of the citizens of California that the California Supreme Court could so easily overturn Prop. 8 and unilaterally make gay marriage the law of the land for at least a time. It should also give us insight into why the gay rights movement feels that Prop. 8 should be repealed because according to their interpretation of the rights afforded by the UDHR, and the direction that the country must go in because of the agreement with the United Nations, restriction of marriages to heterosexual couples is ultimately a violation of both "human" and "civil" rights.

The UDHR DOES NOT mention sexual orientation one time. Why is that important?
TRUE. The UDHR does not mention sexual orientation or homosexuality in any manner. However the language of the document leaves the door open for the homosexual aganda, and further has been used to support the homosexual agenga, considers individuals who are in favor of hetrosexual rights as opposed to homosexual rights, homophobic, and holds traditional moral values and beliefs in contempt in world courts. Further the document revolves around what is called, evolving concepts of human rights. Countries such as The Netherlands, South Africa, Ecuador, Canada, and Colombia, are especially significant because in each of those areas the UDHR has been used to condone portions of international homosexual agenda, including, but not exclusive to homosexual marriage and domestic partnerships.

Does the UDHR hamper or restrict the church's ability to evangelize and preach the gospel message?
Yes it does. In it's most strict sense the UDHR establishes its own brand of religious freedom and promotes religious tolerance to the point that noone should be made to serve in any religion that they do not choose. This is a good thing as it pertains to getting one's head cut off IF they are not a Muslim or being compelled to become a believer. However Christianity, which is proliferated through evangelization and shared faith, IS NOT excluded or given preferential treatment. Many countries that invoke the UDHR also claim that speech against homosexuality and homosexual behavior is to be considered "hate speech". Now, because of UN agreements and treatys, one is restricted on what truths to bring forth in and has to be mindful of what venue a particular set of truths may be applicable. If the CHURCH is signed onto or is in endorsement of the document, I believe that by virtue of that signing, it may place an even greater weight of restriction upon representatives associated with the church or evangelical organization. In short, the UDHR requires that the message is preached according to it's standards with no regard for the standards of Christ.

I'm not a lawyer, but it's certainly worth us asking what affect this agreement has on current COGIC doctrine and policy from this point forward.
Blessed!
3/18/09: The Associated Press reports that President Obama will endorse a UN declaration that decriminalizes homosexual activity around the globe. The basis for this action is the UDHR. The decriminalization of homosexuality is based on the activity being a "human right" as defined under the UDHR. Although this is not a legalization of homosexual marriage, it does place it as an activity that is legal and one that human beings have all rights to within the United States.
3/23/2009: The argument recently laid out regarding the use of the UDHR at COGIC.org suggests that this should be no big deal because the Constitution of the US has been also used to fight for homosexual rights, but the courts have correctly interpreted the Constitution as to NOT endorse homosexual rights up until this point. This statement is an effort to minimize the arguments presented both here and at GCMWatch.org. First, that is a ridiculous argument and what is called a "red-herring". 1- The US Constitution was NOT created with the express purpose of liberating a "sexual minority" or a group of individuals who suffered sexual persecution. Contrarily, the UDHR was instituted with that purpose in mind. 2- The gay rights movement has not successfully argued that the US Constitution liberates a sexual class of individuals. That same gay rights movement has SUCCESSFULLY attached the UDHR and its sister documents to uphold rights for "sexual minorities" INCLUDING but not limited to homosexual marriage, partnerships etc. Subdifusion or pandering on this issue is not flattering. In fact I personally find it totally offensive to suggest that Bishop C.H. Mason endorsed UN agenda in any way. This is totally atrocious and only speaks to the "mystery of iniquity" that works in this issue.

4 comments:

  1. Really, really grateful for this additional exposition from a biblical worldview. Words have power and even the nuances incrementally slipped in over the years primarily by homosexual and abortion rights entities have poisoned any true good will it may have intended to embody.

    If I'm understanding you the UDIHR
    (1)conflicts with the biblical mandate to evangelize the world on Christ's specific orders.

    (2)conflicts with our higher, biblical moral standards. Particularly with sexual issues of which such standards are immutable.

    (3) conflicts with biblical absolutes which direct the parameters of our Christian living.

    (4) Even holds a real threat to national sovreignty by relinquishing our right to make and live by our own laws and the application of those laws apart from other nations and powers.

    The UDIHR because of it broad and fluid interpretation is severely problematic for the church of Christ. I too believe it is a foundational portal which allows access and control of an antichrist system of governance.

    Pastor Burnett as you also noted this would restrict and I believe in some cases make illegal the work of COGIC's foreign missionaries that are in countries behold to the UDIHR.

    Thanks again. The Presiding Bishop should withdraw support for this document and publicly denounce it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gcmwatch,

    Thank you my brother for your comments and I will repost what you stated because your summary is 100% on point:

    The UDHR:

    (1)conflicts with the biblical mandate to evangelize the world on Christ's specific orders.

    (2)conflicts with our higher, biblical moral standards. Particularly with sexual issues of which such standards are immutable.

    (3)conflicts with biblical absolutes which direct the parameters of our Christian living.

    (4) Even holds a real threat to national sovreignty by relinquishing our right to make and live by our own laws and the application of those laws apart from other nations and powers.

    And YES, this statement also demands that the church refrain it's teachings to what is culturally acceptable and further restricts efforts of evangelism.
    THIS IS NOT a CONSPIRACY THEORY. These are FACTS that our church leadership MUST respond to in no uncertain terms.

    Once again thank you GCMwatch for bringing this whole issue to the forefront and those of us that love Christ, HIS church and the people of God are with you in this struggle.

    God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  3. not to beat a dead horse, King excuse me but President Obama is about to sign the UN Gay Rights Declaration which after doing research is based the declaration is based on Article 1 of the UDIHR which our Presiding Bishop signed.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_gay_rights

    Terry

    ReplyDelete
  4. Terry,

    I don't know who "King" is but the declaration that the President is signing is one step closer to the legalization of gay marriage and YES it is a product of the UDHR.

    What the President is signing is a supposedly "non-binding" resolution that will decriminalize homosexual activity and behavior as that type of relationsip is considered criminal activity and outlawed in many nations.

    This is one step closer and YES, he and the document he's signing hails homosexual activities as a "Human Right". Everyone associated with either of these documents seem to view homosexuality as a human right EXCEPT for COGIC leaders...

    Now, you tell me...if THEY (The UN Assemblies and Councils) wrote the document, and if homosexual advocacy groups use the documents to affirm homosexual activities including homosexual marriages as a human right, then how can we (certain COGIC leaders) reinterpret the document stating that everything that is held as human right under the documents AREN'T really human rights???

    That's a total mess!

    ReplyDelete