The United Nations has recently passed a resolution recognizing the human rights of the LGBT community. It passed by a vote of 23 in favor, 19 opposed, and 3 abstentions, or 23 to 22. Without the vote of the United States, and the 3 abstentions, this measure would have failed.
Evidently, the United States lobbied for this resolution. This subject, according to a CNN article, is near and dear to the heart of our Secretary of State Clinton.
The passage of this Resolution highlights a couple of interesting points. First, there was no report of any discussion or even any consideration given to the inherent conflict with the sincerely held religious views of those whose religions do not accept 'alternative lifestyles,' particularly the three monotheistic religions of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. People in the secular community, which generally encompasses the LGBT community, do not accept religious teachings counter to their feelings and inclinations. They often use harsh, if not hateful, language towards believers who hold to teachings laid down hundreds or thousands of years ago. Yet these religious teachings created thriving, healthy civilizations, whereas cultures which have accepted homosexuality have collapsed within decades.
Parenthetically, the first chapter of the Book of Romans in the Bible suggests that acceptance of homosexuality is a particular judgment upon those that refuse to recognize God. This does not mean that homosexuality is a "worse" sin, since the Bible teaches that all sin, whether theft, adultery, coveting, lying, or homosexuality, is a result of rejecting God. The relevant verses are as follows:
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another."
At any rate, all of these major religions include directives to their adherents to go forth and teach their religious beliefs. The Bill of Rights in the American Constitution expressly protects religious activity. Yet the U.N. Resolution here calls for the promotion of the gay lifestyle. Can the promotion of the politically correct gay lifestyle be balanced with the Constitutionally protected promotion of a Godly lifestyle which prohibits the gay lifestyle? Not likely. And in modern American Courts, it is often the Constitution that is ignored in a contest with correctness.
The second interesting point is made in the comments of Suzanne Nossel, a deputy assistant secretary of state, who told CNN, "It really is a key part in setting a new norm that gay rights are human rights and that that has to be accepted globally." She also said, "It's not from scratch. On women's rights, on minority rights, it builds up over time. So this is really a critical beginning of a universal recognition of a new set of rights that forms part of the international system." It shows the self-contradictory thinking that liberalism engages in. While she says its not from scratch, she says in the same breath that it is the fabrication of a new set of rights, and that is precisely what "from scratch" means.
Liberals, not accepting the notion of any external foundation for morals or rights, believe that governments are the source of rights. That might work well during those times when there are benign leaders in charge, but benign leaders are the exception, not the rule. You can't include America in any list of countries with benign leaders, because America was founded on a Judeo-Christian belief system which drew on God and the Bible as the external source of human rights. Look back through history at the leaders of countries that do not have such a heritage, countries where the government watches over and cares for you and gives you the "rights" it believes you deserve: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Quaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and many others. If you are going to place your faith in the inherent goodness of mankind to give and protect your "rights," history is not on your side.
No comments:
Post a Comment