United Nations Coming for Your Religion

[Friends just call me Ross]

Sister Shey just texted me this news article:

 

Check this out. 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/10/united-nations-is-coming-for-your-religion/

Quote

United Nations is coming for your religion

By Cheryl K. Chumley - The Washington Times - Tuesday, March 10, 2020

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The United Nations‘ special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief said in a report presented to the Human Rights Council that faith must not be used to justify violence or discrimination, and that when religion seems to provoke acts of violence or discrimination — particularly against women and gays and transgenders — then the global body’s own equal rights’ protections must take priority over the religious teachings.

On the one hand, that’s a no-duh remark. Discrimination in all its forms is bad. So is violence. We get it. On the other hand, though — and this is where it gets dicey — this is the United Nations‘ way of setting government over religion, of prioritizing government over God.

 

Edited March 13, 2020 by Friends just call me Ross

[Nirex]

 

I quoted that and looked Into it there.

I was going to watch the meeting on it to see how the countries responded but haven't yet. It's 3 hours =(

[Friends just call me Ross]

Sorry if this is a duplicate post.  I was away from my computer yesterday (Dr. appt.)

and have not yet been able to catch up on all the posts I missed.

 

We have been a really yacky bunch of late.  

Even some lurkers have come out of lurkdom.  

[Beaugeste]

On 18 February 2020 at 3:51 PM, cme said:

 

 

5 hours ago, Friends just call me Ross said:

Sister Shey just texted me this news article:

 

Check this out. 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/10/united-nations-is-coming-for-your-religion/

 

The commentator helped me read between the lines.  Implications are so shrouded by skillful language .  Sometimes I miss exactly what's being said!   Thanks , Sister Ross.

[Brother_Bliss]

Quote

“States have an obligation to guarantee to everyone, including women, girls and LGBT+ people, an equal right to freedom of religion or belief, including by creating an enabling environment where pluralist and progressive self-understandings can manifest,” said Special Rapporteur Ahmad Shaheed, in his annual report, LifeSiteNews wrote.

 

That’s the no-duh.

We're fine with this. If we want the right to express our views, then everyone also has to have that right.

 

Quote

Here comes the dicey.

 

From the U.N.’s news desk: “In his report, the UN expert urges States to repeal gender-based discrimination laws, including those enacted with reference to religious considerations that criminalize adultery; criminalize persons on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity; criminalize abortion in all cases; and facilitate religious practices that violate human rights.”

And we're fine with this too. Jehovah's people treat ALL people with respect, from those living alternative lifestyles to those harboring deep-seated prejudice (and we can help root out prejudiced feelings through a study of the Bible). We're not interested in violating anyone's human rights, nor do we meddle in politics in an effort to criminalize anything.

 

 

But, this does seem to be setting the stage, as Bible prophecy does clearly show that Jehovah will use the United Nations to attack false religion.

 

[halfspanishlee]

Very interesting. 😀

[Dages]

Yes, there are many topics about this already.

[Barbllm]

A United Nations "special expert on freedom of religion" says its time for the world's leading religions to submit to the authority of the UN and its human rights bodies, even though critics say those bodies are laced with fringe, leftist views.  It's all about who should have the final say on issues of law and policy, and the  UN expert is saying the UN's ideas should override the beliefs of mainstream religions.

 

The actual report can be read or downloaded here: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomReligion/Pages/Annual.aspx

 

[SUNRAY]

4 hours ago, Barbllm said:

A United Nations "special expert on freedom of religion" says its time for the world's leading religions to submit to the authority of the UN and its human rights bodies, even though critics say those bodies are laced with fringe, leftist views.  It's all about who should have the final say on issues of law and policy, and the  UN expert is saying the UN's ideas should override the beliefs of mainstream religions.

 

The actual report can be read or downloaded here: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomReligion/Pages/Annual.aspx

 

I went to the link but don't know which link there to see the information in your comment..could you select the link and post that please? Thanks.

[Barbllm]

1 hour ago, SUNRAY said:

I went to the link but don't know which link there to see the information in your comment..could you select the link and post that please? Thanks.

Sure.  Sorry for any confusion.  It's the first one: 

Year	Symbol number	Title
2020	A/HRC/43/48 (Advance Unedited Version)	Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (Focus: Freedom of religion or belief and Gender Equality)

Clicking on it just opens it in .docx format.

 

[Hotteok]

If it’s just an insignificant report by some ordinary expert, why is there an article at all with an exaggerated title such as “UN is COMING for your religion”? (Scary) 
 

Being a non-JW writer, is he/she making a fuss over nothing or is the report reflecting how even worldly people are sensing an ominous change of the world’s atmosphere? 

Edited March 16, 2020 by Tryin'SoHardToBeSpiritual

[Nirex]

7 minutes ago, Tryin'SoHardToBeSpiritual said:

If it’s just an insignificant report by some ordinary expert, why is there an article at all with an exaggerated title such as “UN is COMING for your religion”? (Scary) 
 

Being a non-JW writer, is he/she making a fuss over nothing or is the report reflecting how even worldly people are sensing an ominous change of the world’s atmosphere? 

Because the UN held their Human Rights council they hold every year. The special (can't remember how it was spelled) rappoteur?? said his piece (that document) and then people representing their nations commented on it. (The videos I posted in the other thread on this).

 

After watching the vids. Most of the muslim nations were dismissing it, telling the guy he was pushing too far, and going passed his job. The Holy See delegate said that as well. Europe, and some of its nations and a few others thanked him for his suggestions, some saying they needed to do better on choosing between relgion laws and LGBT/Abortion and some saying they were already doing better.

 

... It wasn't very ground shaking in the council in the end. HOWEVER the Human Rights Council was not completed, they had to end it early due to the virus and will be picking it back up after, so who knows what they may decide between now and then. Maybe they might have a 'change of heart' if you know what I mean.

 

But also, keep in mind it's just the Human Rights Council. When it comes to the UN, the Security Council seems to hold the  most power. General Assembly after them. Human Rights Council is more of a ... "This is the stuff we need to work on."

[Ferb]

On 3/14/2020 at 1:55 PM, Dismal_Bliss said:

And we're fine with this too. Jehovah's people treat ALL people with respect, from those living alternative lifestyles to those harboring deep-seated prejudice (and we can help root out prejudiced feelings through a study of the Bible). We're not interested in violating anyone's human rights, nor do we meddle in politics in an effort to criminalize anything.

I'm not sure you fully appreciate what they mean by "discrimination laws, including those enacted with reference to religious considerations".  The law in most Western countries forbids any discrimination on the basis of sex, but makes a few exceptions, such as requiring a man to play a male part in a play for example, and more relevantly on the basis of religious reasons.  I think this is the kind of discrimination law you have to have in mind.  For example, paragraph 44 states, "Participants in the Special Rapporteur’s consultations from countries such as Poland, the USA and Kenya noted that the invocation of  ‘conscience clauses’ provided in law had made access to legal abortion effectively unavailable to women in  significant parts of the country."  So here what he's really proposing isn't 'treating all people with respect', it's forcing you to kill children if you've trained in medicine to save lives.  If you say "we're fine with this", that statement certainly doesn't extend to me!  But you can always quit your job as a doctor - it's not an outright attack on practicing your religion.  The report gets better.  Paragraphs 46-53 are all very interesting, but I'll just quote a few bits:

Quote

In every region, the Special Rapporteur heard from women and LGBT+ persons  who are limited in their opportunities to contribute to the content of their religion or belief. ... For many, their only option is to accept the discriminatory beliefs, rules and internal workings of a religion or belief or leave. ...  He notes, however, that the principle of institutional autonomy does not extend to State deference to harmful discriminatory gender norms. ... Firstly, they contend that rules regulating the status of men and women, including in the appointment of clergy or in institutional structures that enforce anti-LGBT+ bias, may be ‘religious’ in nature but they are also political; norms and practices which promote stereotypical masculinities and femininities about roles and about sexuality have profound impacts on the polity ... They noted that those who pursue gender equality, including gender equal beliefs, can risk violence, shunning and stigma from their religious communities. ... Equal liberties and protections in society, such as the right to equality and non-discrimination or the right to physical integrity, can only be maintained if individuals are never deemed as having waived said rights and liberties, even by voluntarily joining an organization.

So, you can claim that you're not interested in violating anyone's human rights - and as far as Jehovah decided what people's human rights were, you may be correct.  But the Rapporteur clearly thinks it's people's human right to be what religion they choose and still have equal rights as men and women, including - for instance - the equal right of a man or woman to be an elder.  He spends 8 paragraphs, about a tenth of his report, making quite clear his view that requiring appointed men to be male, not to mention requiring any marriage they are in not to be a homosexual one, would be an example of "religious practices that violate human rights", and that the fact that it's only within a voluntarily joined organisation doesn't make it legal (as he makes further arguments for in paragraphs 70-76).  So assuming you want to keep following Jehovah's direction, you are interested in violating people's human rights as the rapporteur perceives them - your wife's for a start, just by exercising family headship and thereby encouraging 'harmful discriminatory gender norms', you nasty human rights abuser! 😀

 

(Incidentally, I particularly like how paragraph 34 of the report gets all upset about certain organisations using 'pseudoscience' to defend traditional family values and 'social roles for men and women in accordance with their alleged naturally different physical and mental capacities'. Yes, only a 'pseudoscience' could promote such an idea - how does it get accepted, in our day age!  Imagine, allegedly men and women have natural physical differences!  Ho ho ho!  What fool could believe such pseudoscience!  🤣  And they think we're the brainwashed ones.)

[Barbllm]

11 hours ago, Tryin'SoHardToBeSpiritual said:

If it’s just an insignificant report by some ordinary expert, why is there an article at all with an exaggerated title such as “UN is COMING for your religion”? (Scary) 
 

Because yellow journalism and sensationalism sell newspapers (even digital copies)?  And partly because there are many evangelical "Christians" in the US who own businesses and who happily discriminate against anyone who doesn't fit their particular social/economic/religious criteria.  Remember the fuss about the bakery that refused to bake a cake for a gay couple?  

 

[Katty]

1 hour ago, Barbllm said:

Because yellow journalism and sensationalism sell newspapers (even digital copies)?  And partly because there are many evangelical "Christians" in the US who own businesses and who happily discriminate against anyone who doesn't fit their particular social/economic/religious criteria.  Remember the fuss about the bakery that refused to bake a cake for a gay couple?  

 

I would not make a custom cake for a same sex wedding, nor would I photograph one were a photographer. Even though I would be fine with selling anything premade  item to any LGBT+ client, it would bother my conscience to do something custom. It's like where I work, I sell birthday cards and birthday balloons, etc., but I refuse when people ask me to write a birthday or Christmas message in their card. Now it's a personalized custom service, and I've declined to do so based on that principle. There's a difference between refusing a sale due to a demographic and not participating in something that bothers your conscience.

Edited March 16, 2020 by Katty

[BenJepthah]

6 hours ago, Barbllm said:

Because yellow journalism and sensationalism sell newspapers (even digital copies)?  And partly because there are many evangelical "Christians" in the US who own businesses and who happily discriminate against anyone who doesn't fit their particular social/economic/religious criteria.  Remember the fuss about the bakery that refused to bake a cake for a gay couple?  

 

Like it or not : Jehovah’s people are in truth the MOST Evangelical of all! And some  who have small businesses are having to carefully navigate those very same issues. We just aren’t using the political system to fight back.

[Barbllm]

5 hours ago, Katty said:

I would not make a custom cake for a same sex wedding, nor would I photograph one were a photographer. Even though I would be fine with selling anything premade  item to any LGBT+ client, it would bother my conscience to do something custom. It's like where I work, I sell birthday cards and birthday balloons, etc., but I refuse when people ask me to write a birthday or Christmas message in their card. Now it's a personalized custom service, and I've declined to do so based on that principle. There's a difference between refusing a sale due to a demographic and not participating in something that bothers your conscience.

It's a very fine line to walk; I know a couple of sisters who do beautiful cakes for graduations, weddings, and pioneer appreciation parties, but they won't really "go public" or sell to the public due to issues like this.  It's similar to pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions due to their religious beliefs.

 

Refusing a sale based on a demographic is, in some areas, considered discrimination.  That appears to be where this is all headed: LGBTQ people want to be protected in the same way that others are protected by civil rights laws and regulations.

[BenJepthah]

15 hours ago, Barbllm said:

 

Refusing a sale based on a demographic is, in some areas, considered discrimination.  That appears to be where this is all headed: LGBTQ people want to be protected in the same way that others are protected by civil rights laws and regulations.

Yes quite probably MOST “LGBTQ people want to be protected “ . But as with any group these days SOME are never co tent with merely having rites protected and insist upon much much more. 
   Example:   The case of comedian Kevin Hart . 
There is NO RITE not to be made fun of by a comedian. None! Zilch!  And although he , years ago apologized openly for his previous Comedic routine which had anti gay elements he was still attacked and eventually lost his job . No amount of redemption is good enough for such ones : they are out for blood.  Conversely, Ellen DeGeneres was the picture of grace and forgiveness to her friend Mr. Hart.  What was the result the LGBTQ mob, out for blood , attacked her as well.  So, it was never about “ rites being protected “ not for some. It was about destroying an enemy.  Who is the enemy of those who practice sin in any form? 

[minister159]

On 3/16/2020 at 6:12 AM, Ferb said:

 

So, you can claim that you're not interested in violating anyone's human rights - and as far as Jehovah decided what people's human rights were, you may be correct.  But the Rapporteur clearly thinks it's people's human right to be what religion they choose and still have equal rights as men and women, including - for instance - the equal right of a man or woman to be an elder.  He spends 8 paragraphs, about a tenth of his report, making quite clear his view that requiring appointed men to be male, not to mention requiring any marriage they are in not to be a homosexual one, would be an example of "religious practices that violate human rights", and that the fact that it's only within a voluntarily joined organisation doesn't make it legal (as he makes further arguments for in paragraphs 70-76).  So assuming you want to keep following Jehovah's direction, you are interested in violating people's human rights as the rapporteur perceives them - your wife's for a start, just by exercising family headship and thereby encouraging 'harmful discriminatory gender norms', you nasty human rights abuser! 😀

 

 

Here in the U.S. the separation of church and state is still the law. Some atheistic individuals have fought to get the words, "In God We Trust," and "One Nation Under God," removed from the currency and the pledge of allegiance on that basis. It seems that this U.N. expert is attempting to blur this separation or remove it altogether by using anti-discrimination laws to override Bible law or what he deems as religious bias and discrimination. He wants to rewrite Bible law with governmental law, and make it null and void. Apparently, he doesn't understand what Jesus meant when he said, "Pay back Caesar's things to Caesar, but God's things to God." 

 

When someone "joins" our organization, they are fully vetted first before being allowed to join. They know the rules going in and understand these are God's rules not man's, and what the consequences of violating these rules are. This is how a Theocracy works. It was the same under the Mosaic law and the nation of Israel. Today, no one is forced, coerced and certainly not brainwashed, when they make a completely voluntary and unconditional dedication to Jehovah, agreeing to disown themselves and follow in Jesus' footsteps. Therefore, they cannot rightly claim ignorance or cry discrimination at some later point, if they decide they made a mistake, change their mind or don't like the rules. Anyone is free to leave and disassociate themselves, if that's their desire, and those who don't want to play by the rules can't stay in the game, but please don't attempt to force us, under the guise of human rights, to accept what God condemns and pay back God's things to Caesar!

[Brother_Bliss]

On 3/16/2020 at 9:12 AM, Ferb said:

I'm not sure you fully appreciate what they mean by "discrimination laws, including those enacted with reference to religious considerations". 

Apparently not. Mind you, I was only quoting and commenting on a couple sentences in the article. I wasn't about to go bother reading a report with seeming innumerable pages.

 

You've brought out some interesting points though. Unfortunately, it's a dead end arguing with those types - they not only want to have no rules, standards, etc, but they want to crush groups that do want to live by standards.  

 

 

[Friends just call me Ross]

For now, the UN 'seems to be' defending religion:

 

Quote

26 March 2020  Peace and Security

The Secretary-General condemned Wednesday’s attack on a Sikh temple in the heart of Kabul, Afghanistan, that left dozens of civilians killed and injured. 

...

Recalling the UN Plan of Action to Safeguard Religious Sites, the High Representative stressed that “attacks targeting sacred sites and worshippers are intolerable and have to stop”. 

 

Mr. Moratinos called on all governments, as well as others, to support the implementation of the plan to guarantee the sanctity of worship places and the safety of worshipers”. 

 

Against the backdrop of previous terrorist assaults on Sikhs and other religious minorities in Afghanistan, he said that raid “adds to an expanding number of attacks targeting various faith communities around the world”. 

 

He underscored that “such outrageous acts of terror” should not be a dissuasion to promoting “solidarity, respect, and peace globally”.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/03/1060312

 

[Buddy]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/10/united-nations-is-coming-for-your-religion/

[Todd komaniak]

The story was from back in March 10th of this year nothing new

[Tbs77]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/10/united-nations-is-coming-for-your-religion/

Hi Buddy...most articles regarding UN might plop/fall in International Peace and Security forum...

I'd send link but it's a little weird because I use App Tapatalk..

Agape