Did Our Bishop Obfuscate?

The word Obfuscate simply is the concealment of meaning in communication, making it confusing and harder to interpret.

In this post I want to make it clear that The Dunamis Word is calling the Presiding Bishop of our church, The Church Of God in Christ, Inc. Mem. TN. in the person of Bishop Charles E. Blake, yet into question again regarding his statements to the General Assembly in April 2009. The statements in question are those centering around the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR was endorsed the Presiding Bishop as a matter of positioning the church in unison with the tenets of the human rights document during the later part of 2008, and according to the Bishop in an effort to better align the church with international human rights efforts.

This post is clear and DOES NOT call into question the person or character of Bishop Blake. This post does not imply that the Bishop is either homosexual or partial to homosexuality and does not seek to besmirch his person. However this post does call into question the accuracy of his statements as recorded in written records regarding the UDHR, it's current use, and original intent.

The written record of Bishop Blake's response regarding the UDHR can be found HERE. It is that document and statements made therein that are questioned. I will highlight the statements as made by the Bishop and outline my concerns and what is generally known as common knowledge regarding these matters. Here we go:

The Creation Of The Proclamation Of Human Rights

Regarding the original creation of the document by the United Nations in 1948 and the endorsement of what was then the "Proclamation Of Human Rights" by the Church Of God in Christ, Mem. TN. in 1955, Bishop Blake states the following on Pg. 2 paragraph 4 of his response:

• 
  
  "In 1948, the UN issued the Statutes of the Genocide Convention and “Proclamation of Human Rights,” which was a condemnation of and prohibition of human right atrocities and cruelty. Six million Jews had been killed by the Nazis. Again in 1955, Bishop Mason sent Pastor Delk and Dr. Arenia C. Mallory to sign the UN Charter on the 10th Anniversary of the same."

What Bishop does not mention here is that the "Proclamation Of Human Rights" carried a duel aspect of human rights that included and provided for the practice of homosexuality by addressing atrocities and crimes against homosexuals. In fact as noted in my article Are Human Rights Gay Rights Pt. 2? The University Of Minnesota Human Rights Center addressed this issue as follows:

• 
  
  "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."

As for the intent, all rational persons agree that homosexuals should not be singled out or be open targets of crime and violence. That is not in question. However, the notion that the UDHR had NO CONSIDERATION for homosexuals or what we view as the homosexual agenda should be put to rest from this point forward. From it's very inception atrocities against homosexuals WERE INCLUDED in the intents and structure of the UDHR. Homosexuals WERE in consideration when the original documents were created and called the "Proclamation Of Human Rights". By deductive reasoning, since the document DID NOT condemn the practice of homosexuality, one should reasonable assume that the practice of homosexuality including homosexual marriages and personal freedoms WOULD be included at the heart of the document. To suggest otherwise is not lying, but a mere shading of the truth, and gives rise to more suspicion.

The Current Or Potential Use Of The UDHR?

Bishop Blake sets the use of the UDHR and the endorsement of gay marriage as only a "potential" of the document and calls the document "good". He repeatedly asserts that the document only has the "potential" to be used by gay rights advocates who advocate gay marriage. These are the facts:

Bishop Blake states on pg. 3 paragraph 2:

• 
  
  "Even my critics agree that the documents are focused on preventing and speaking against torture, genocide, and various forms of bondage and oppression. The fundamental criticism is that homosexual advocates and activists may use the documents to support their efforts to legalize homosexual marriage and other same sex initiatives."

Bishop Blake states on pg. 3 paragraph 4:

• 
  
  "In other words, the documents are not wrong or evil, they are good; but, individuals may use them to support evil and detrimental objectives."

Bishop Blake states on pg 3 paragraph 5:

• 
  
  "My response is that this attempt to abuse the document should refuted and denounced when it takes place, and not at the origination of or even at the evaluation of the good document itself. You don’t say, “It’s good, but its bad because someone may abuse it.” Any good thing can be abused, but you don’t throw it away or judge it as evil."

Bishop Blake states on pg. 3 paragraph 7:

• 
  
  "We must not allow the possibility that some one might try to abuse this good document to stop us from supporting its good use in decreasing torture and genocide in our world."

As previously stated, it is obvious from his 4 references and his apologetic regarding the misuse of a hammer, and the bible, that Bishop considers the document to be a wholly "good" document which only has the "potential" to be used wrongly by homosexual advocacy groups and ultimately in support of the homosexual agenda.

Are Bishop Blake's Assessments Regarding This Correct?

In Our Opinion NO! Here's Why:

Bishop Blake establishes the notion that the UDHR only has the "potential" to be used by homosexuals to fight for rights such as gay marriage and certain moral/immoral gender equality issues. We have repeatedly stated and will restate that this declaration not only has the potential to be used by gay advocacy groups but IS CURRENTLY being used by gay advocacy groups to fight for gay rights INCLUDING but not limited to gay marriage, which Bishop disavows with his General Assembly statements (Pg. 3 paragraph 8)

As proof and in support of our arguments we offer that gay advocacy groups are currently invoking the UDHR as a standard for gay rights, specifying homosexuals as "discriminated" against "sexual minorities". This document (the UDHR) and it's standards as they proclaim support and gay marriage and other gay rights beyond personal protections, and basic civil liberties. As referenced in our article Are Human Rights Gay Rights? there are a number of prominent gay advocacy groups who invoke the UDHR in support of gay marriage. I will reintroduce the more prominent groups CURRENTLY, not potentially, using the UDHR in support of its gay rights and homosexual marriage doctrines:

1- The National Center For Lesbian Rights (NCLR):

• 
  
  "Furthermore, as a member of the United Nations, the United States has a duty to respect the principles set forth in the United Nations Charter. The U.N. Charter is a treaty which binds member states of the United Nations. The U.N. Charter reads, in relevant part, that the purpose of the United Nations is to promote and encourage respect for human rights. While the U.N. Charter fails to define what human rights are, such rights may be defined by reference to the various human rights conventions subsequently adopted by the United Nations, known as the International Bill of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration and the ICCPR,instruments included within the International Bill of Human Rights, recognize the international right to family. The rights contained within the International Bill of Human Rights are incorporated into the larger definition of human rights under the U.N. Charter that should be adhered to by the United States. Lastly, the United States may have a duty under customary" ~ Attorneys Lena Ayoub and Shin-Ming Wong [Separate And Unequal ; 1/30/2006]

2- The Intl. Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission

This group SPECIFICALLY hales the "Universal Declaration Of Human Rights" as one of the primary granters of world wide human rights for gay and lesbians. This is from their website:

• 
  
  "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international treaties specify that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. But people who challenge sexual and gender norms regularly experience discrimination related to housing, social security, and employment, such as when they are denied jobs because of their appearance or evicted from their homes because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Together with our partners, we work to eliminate discrimination and to foster laws and policies promoting the equality of all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression."

In fact in this organization's publication Newsletter Spring/Summer 2008 Bishop Desmond TUTU is hailed as a defender of "Human Rights" for his fight against "Racism and Homophobia"

3- The Human Rights Campaign Foundation

This group advocates and hales homosexual rights both as civil and human rights also. They also hail gay marriage as a "human and civil right". This is directly from their website:

"Through research, educational efforts and outreach, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation encourages lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans to live their lives openly and seeks to change the hearts and minds of Americans to the side of equality."

Under it's "About Religion & Faith" program (Who's director is Harry Knox who currently serves with Bishop Blake on the Faith Based & Neighborhood Partnerships Advisory Cmte.) the organization states the following:

• 
  
  "The Human Rights Campaign Religion and Faith Program’s mission is to change the conversation about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people and faith. Because of the pioneering efforts of brave religious people speaking out for equality, a new movement for change is emerging that embraces a culture of welcome, compassion, and hospitality, values that are at the heart of all our faith traditions."

This is not and all inclusive list and only serves to point out the FACT that the UDHR is CURRENTLY being used to support gay rights and most specifically gay marriage and family. This, in our opinion, is SOLID proof that any arguments made based on the documents "potentials" are not a complete and forthright disclosure of how the document IS CURRENTLY being used and how it HAS BEEN USED for a number of years.

60 Years Later

The final piece of this writing regarding the UDHR notes the dramatic social changes over the last 60 years. In order to gain a more full appreciation for what this document (UDHR) represents now, we must not overlook the emergence of a vocal and steadily increasing homosexual rights agenda over that 60 year period of time.

Over the same 60 years the Bishop CORRECTLY relays that there have been horrendous social atrocities internationally when it comes to basic human rights violations. However, the focus of the UDHR as it CURRENTLY stands and is CURRENTLY being used, goes beyond basic human rights violations, into the relatively new territory of homosexual equality and moral right.

Because of the expanding nature of the homosexual agenda the foundation of marriage and redefinition of the family has risen to center stage in this era. The UDHR, because it is controlled by men, is culturally commensurate with standards that are applicable to the generation in which the document is being used. It is because of the CURRENT use, nature and scope of the UDHR that The Church Of God In Christ should withdraw its endorsement of the document and set forth a clear and bold international human rights campaign that does not infringe or intermingle with secular views and proliferation of a modern brand of human rights which by overwhelming evidence INCLUDES, (whether specifically or indirectly) homosexual marriage and gay family structures as morally normative and acceptable.

Conclusion:

• 
  
  This post could not be more clear as to it's purpose, intents and message regarding the UDHR.
• 
  
  The UDHR IS CURRENTLY used, not potentially used, to advocate gay marriage.
• 
  
  The UDHR additionally defines the interaction of the church and distribution of religious dogma by assigning countries and entities. The endorsement of the UDHR effectively directs the use of religion in member countries, and shapes and restricts the teachings of every religion, including Christianity, to standards acceptable to and defined by the United Nations.
• 
  
  Over the last 60 years, homosexual rights advocacy groups have grown, developed and made remarkable strides in setting forth the notion that gay rights, including gay marriage are HUMAN rights.
• 
  
  The UDHR has been and is continuing to be used by gay advocacy groups in the proliferation of gay rights and currently hales them as "discriminated against sexual minorities"
• 
  
  What good elements that the UDHR contains can be promoted by the Church Of God In Christ both nationally and internationally among groups who hold standards of godliness and who specifically proclaim the bible as the objective standard for morality and righteousness.

The question remains: Did Bishop Blake obfuscate, when he set forth his explanation of the Church Of God In Christ's interaction and endorsement of the UDHR?

Blessed!