The UN?

[David Brider]

"Merely individuals"? Huh? Wouldn't that essentially imply the community, or do you think it means protecting one single individual in exclusion from the rest?

But I disagree; the community is entirely composed of individuals. The government is highly prone to abuse when it falls into lines of thinking about society as anything but individuals.

Yes, I quite agree - but that's not the same thing as saying (as per the original poster) "the sole purpose of Government is to protect the individual". Government should be (AIUI) about building healthy societies, healthy communities. Community may well be composed of individuals (although I prefer to think of the family as the basic unit), but an overemphasis on "the individual" as opposed to community as a whole is, I believe, likely to have a detrimental effect on the healthy functioning of that community.

David.

 

[romanov]

Well, the UN isn't a government - all the nations represented by the UN still have their own governments.

In the US, we have 50 states. Each state has a number of counties. Each county is it's own government subject to the laws of the state. Each state has it's own government subject to the laws of the federal government. And unfortunately, because of bizarre interpretations of the Constitution, the federal government is subject to laws created by treaties made with other countries. That puts the UN dangerously close to being another level of government. I imagine the same could be said of your country because treaties become law of your country. I guess an example for you would be if Britain had signed a treaty that established the EU, then you would be subject to the laws of the EU.

Really all the UN needs to do to effectivly become another level of government is gain the power to tax. They can already punish rogue "states" as they say, by using censure, imbargos, and war.

As for whether it ties into the end times as depicted in Revelation - possibly, possibly not. Where two or three New Testament scholars are gathered together, you'll find about a dozen different interpretations of Revelation, and frankly I long ago learned not to let it bother me. We'll see how it pans out in the long run. In the meantime, international groupings - be they the EU, the UN, or whatever - seem to be a very positive idea, with the various nations (and ideally their citizens) co-operating instead of competing, befriending instead of feuding and fighting. And I think - partly but not entirely because of my Christian faith - that that's a commendable ideal.

I find that a bit naive. The UN hasn't stopped a single war. They really haven't fed a single mouth. They can't even keep their "peacekeepers" from raping the local populus. These "peacekeepers" go in and once the bullets start flying, they pull up their pants, tuck tale and run, start screaming the US and Britain need to do something. Then if we don't, claim we're nothing but a bunch of racists. And if we do, we're war mongering imperialists.

But what can you expect from a den of thieves that puts countries like the Sudan, Iraq, Cuba and China on it's human rights commision. They will also put countries like Iran, N. Korea and Iraq (prior to Saddam's ousting) on the world disarmament commision.

I'm not really familiar with Libertarianism, but I don't really agree with protecting the individual as being the sole purpose of government.

I might have messed up a little here. Protecting the individual is not the sole purpose of government. It's really only about 80% of the purpose of government. The other 20% would, of course, be roads, bridges, prisons, courts, things of that nature.

As far as my justification for government's main purpose is to protect the individual, First you have to understand the Libertarian point of view is, "You have the right to do as you please as long as it does not deprive me or others of our right to life, liberty and property through force or fraud." Now that is more or less Libertarianism in a nutshell. If you want the full complete explaination, I can recommend a couple of hundred books on philosophy, economics, etc.

Let me ask these two questions. First, do you believe it is the job of the government to protect minorities? And what is the smallest minority? If you can answer those two questions, you will know why the major purpose of government is to protect the individual.

I'd've thought the main purpose of government was just that - to govern. Surely the whole of the community it governs should be its concern, not merely individuals?

I guess that really depends on how valuable you think you are and whether or not you feel you are responsible for yourself and your own actions. What if the British government decided that what is best for it's community was for you to no longer be a Christian because they don't want you to offend Muslims? Then where would you stand? I mean surely in light of the ferver over the Muslim cartoons, wouldn't it be a good idea not to offend Muslims?

It is? Could you provide some documentation of that? FYI, here's the text of the Charter.

If you would like, I can go through the whole thing bit by bit and show you. But for now, suffice it to say since the key players in the creation of the UN (and by that I mean the Dumbarton Oakes conference attendees), were Marxists. Alger Hess was a Marxist. His brother was a Marxist. The representative from France (imagine that) was a Marxist. And the representative from Russia was, of course, a Marxist. Why do you think the Soviet Union was given 2 votes in the UN security council?

That's a bit of an overstatement. Marxism may be rather an extreme form of left-wing philosophy, but much of the basis of Christian ethics fit more comfortably within a left-wing framework than within a right-wing one, so the difference is more one of degree than of direction.

I disagree with you on two points. The first point has to do with left wing ethics fit more comfortably with Christian ethics. I've given this example a couple of times but I'm going to repeat myself. Why does God want us to help the poor? It does two things. One, it helps the poor. Two, and more importantly, it builds character in those who help the poor. It teaches us to be humble. It teaches us that excess in material wealth, at the end of the day, is meaningless in God's eyes. Remember the rich man who went to Jesus and asked what he needed to do to have riches in Heaven. He told that person, to give away all his stuff and follow Him because Jesus knew that man loved his stuff more than he loved God. To you, He may say, I don't know...."Don't eat Twinkies anymore and follow me" because He knows you better than I know you. Basically whatever gets between you and God, He's going to tell you to give up.

Now tell me which man is better in the sight of God, the guy who goes before a congressional subcommitee and demands the federal government raise taxes on all the rich and give it to the poor, then goes before all the cameras and the lights and tells them all what a great and wonderful person he is because he did this thing to get more money for the poor or the guy who gives away his spare cloak, does it in secret and doesn't walk the street acting all pious?

The second point I disagree on is that Marxism and Christianity aren't directionally opposed to each other. Marxism seeks to replace Christianity; in fact all religions. Marx, Engel and Lennon all three said that Communism is to replace religion because Marxism is a religion. It would be simple enough for you to look it up because all three of them said it repeatedly.

 

[romanov]

I have found that the only legitimate use for the UN is it makes a great sound effect when playing with toy cars...

UN-NUNUNUNUNUN...

That's a good one. I like that. Totally in agreement.

 

[romanov]

Yes, I quite agree - but that's not the same thing as saying (as per the original poster) "the sole purpose of Government is to protect the individual". Government should be (AIUI) about building healthy societies, healthy communities. Community may well be composed of individuals (although I prefer to think of the family as the basic unit), but an overemphasis on "the individual" as opposed to community as a whole is, I believe, likely to have a detrimental effect on the healthy functioning of that community.

David.

Pretty much I answered all this in my previous post to you. I don't know what you mean by AIUI but I'm going to assume you mean build a healthy society by having healthy communities. Well, how would you have healthy communities? Hmmmm...let's see...since communities are made up of individuals, it stands to reason that if you have a community of self sufficient individuals, you would have self sufficient families, self sufficient communities and thus a self sufficient society. Sufice it to say, the society wouldn't have a whole lot of need for government. Maybe that's why government doesn't want well educated, moral, and self sufficient individuals because then they would lose their power, their prestige and their privelege.

 

[David Brider]

Pretty much I answered all this in my previous post to you. I don't know what you mean by AIUI but I'm going to assume you mean build a healthy society by having healthy communities. Well, how would you have healthy communities? Hmmmm...let's see...since communities are made up of individuals, it stands to reason that if you have a community of self sufficient individuals, you would have self sufficient families, self sufficient communities and thus a self sufficient society.

Your other post I'll hopefully deal with when I've got a bit more time, but to respond to this...the danger with self-sufficiency is that it leads, or at least can lead, to extreme independence and individuality, which is anathema to a healthy society. Better to start with society as a whole and encourage individuals to find their place within society, in their interdependent relationships with other people both near and far, than to go down a road in which each man is seen as an island, IMO.

David.

 

[romanov]

the danger with self-sufficiency is that it leads, or at least can lead, to extreme independence and individuality,

Oh my! The humanity! How horrible would that be for there to be a bunch of people who have enough sense to live their own lives? And look at the batch of politicians running around the world today and look at your friends, coworkers and family members. Why on Earth would you want these people running your life?

which is anathema to a healthy society. Better to start with society as a whole and encourage individuals to find their place within society,

Ok, so you want to me to pigionhole myself into everyone else's thinking? The only thinking that I try to live by other than my own is God's. How many people around you think that's stupid?

in their interdependent relationships with other people both near and far,

How many people near you truly know YOU? And how can someone far away know you? Would you want someone in, say, the Taliban telling you how to live your life? The only person who truly knows YOU is God. That's the only person you need to be concerned with.

than to go down a road in which each man is seen as an island, IMO.

No man is an island in and of himself. He has God.

 

[David Brider]

If you would like, I can go through the whole thing bit by bit and show you. But for now, suffice it to say since the key players in the creation of the UN (and by that I mean the Dumbarton Oakes conference attendees), were Marxists. Alger Hess was a Marxist.

Alger Hiss, actually. Admittedly I've only had a few minutes to look up the details, but it seems he was alleged to be a Communist (which isn't quite the same thing as a Marxist). And it's rather overstating the case to describe him as a "key player in the creation of the UN".

I disagree with you on two points. The first point has to do with left wing ethics fit more comfortably with Christian ethics. I've given this example a couple of times but I'm going to repeat myself. Why does God want us to help the poor? It does two things. One, it helps the poor. Two, and more importantly, it builds character in those who help the poor. It teaches us to be humble. It teaches us that excess in material wealth, at the end of the day, is meaningless in God's eyes. Remember the rich man who went to Jesus and asked what he needed to do to have riches in Heaven. He told that person, to give away all his stuff and follow Him because Jesus knew that man loved his stuff more than he loved God. To you, He may say, I don't know...."Don't eat Twinkies anymore and follow me" because He knows you better than I know you. Basically whatever gets between you and God, He's going to tell you to give up.

Now tell me which man is better in the sight of God, the guy who goes before a congressional subcommitee and demands the federal government raise taxes on all the rich and give it to the poor, then goes before all the cameras and the lights and tells them all what a great and wonderful person he is because he did this thing to get more money for the poor or the guy who gives away his spare cloak, does it in secret and doesn't walk the street acting all pious?

Bit of a false dichotomy you've got going there. What about a man who - inspired by a strong Christian faith - makes a case for redistribution of wealth and then doesn't take the limelight in the self-serving manner you depict?

The second point I disagree on is that Marxism and Christianity aren't directionally opposed to each other. Marxism seeks to replace Christianity; in fact all religions. Marx, Engel and Lennon all three said that Communism is to replace religion because Marxism is a religion. It would be simple enough for you to look it up because all three of them said it repeatedly.

I'd be very interested if you could find one reliable source for any of those three making any such a claim. (And by the way, I suspect you mean Lenin, not Lennon - two very different people indeed.) Certainly, Marx's "religion is the opiate of the people" line could be trotted out to show him as being opposed to religious belief (although apparently that's a misquote anyway), but if that's the case he'd hardly suggest that Communism/Marxism (the two are different, if only subtly) are religions.

FWIW, I think you'll find that the opinions of Marx, Engels and Lenin with respect to religious belief, including but not limited to Christianity, are in fact slightly less simplistically hostile than you imply. This article is rather an interesting read on the matter.)

But even if Marx, Engels and Lenin were as diametrically opposed to Christianity as you suggest, my argument is not about them per se, but about left-wing ideology itself, including (but not limited to) Marxism. Both Christian ethics and left-wing ideology are about standing up for, and providing for, the poor, the downtrodden, the disenfranchised, those who are unable to stand up for themselves. The ways in which they advocate doing it may be different, but the ends to which they work are, IMO, strikingly similar.

David.

 

[David Brider]

Oh my! The humanity! How horrible would that be for there to be a bunch of people who have enough sense to live their own lives?

Mm. I specifically said, "extreme independence and individuality." I'm not for one moment suggesting that individuality is a bad thing; what has the potential to be damaging to society is when individuals think that they can cope on their own without reference to the rest of society. It damages society. It unbalances society. It encourages a "me first" ethic of life.

And look at the batch of politicians running around the world today and look at your friends, coworkers and family members. Why on Earth would you want these people running your life?

I'm not saying other people should run our lives. Just that we need to realise that we work best in relationship with other people, and that the best relationship we can have with other people is one of interdependence.

The only thinking that I try to live by other than my own is God's. How many people around you think that's stupid?

Living life by God's thinking? I don't think it's stupid at all. Millions of people who don't believe in God may well do, though. And they're the people we've got to share our community with.

No man is an island in and of himself. He has God.

But what about people who don't have God? People who are so determined to be self-sufficient and independent of society that they end up making themselves their own gods?

David.

 

[artybloke]

The agenda of the UN is power, prestige and privilege.

Sounds exactly like the agenda of the US Imperialist Empire so what's the big deal? Oh, I know, the US don't like competition.

 

[romanov]

Hi David I did some digging around in some old notes last night I will get those posted tonight. just came down to turn the computer off. I forgot to do that when I went to bed and I saw this and had to reply....

Sounds exactly like the agenda of the US Imperialist Empire so what's the big deal? Oh, I know, the US don't like competition.

What empire are you talking about? Oh, you must be talking about our settlements in England and Europe. Well we call those cemeteries and they are filled with American war dead. You know, from the two world wars. One we had no business in and the other would not have happened if we stayed out of the first!!

Must mean those military bases in Germany. You know the ones that keep the Soviet Union from over running you. Well that gets a nope, we pay to keep those.

You must mean our 51st state, Japan. Oh wait, Japan is a sovereign nation.

So, you must mean South Africa or India. Hold the phone wasn't that.... England?

Indo China..... England, France. and the Netherlands

Middle east then...na. can't really count that one, Let's see now, who was it that presided over the demise of the Ottoman Empire and then divided the region up with no regard to history and ethnic background..... Why England again!

Then there is the British Partition of Palestine..oops! gave that one away.

Oh I know! You are talking about how went down to the Falkland Islands and really gave them Argentineans what for I tell ya! Oh dang that wasn't us, who was that? Maybe you can help me with that one!

Are you familiar with the phrase: Pot calling the kettle black?

Wasn't I the one who said that all politicians only want power, prestige, and privlage. All means every last one of them. And trust me I would love it if the next time Europe or the UN came running to us demanding that we do something about this growing crises. The President would say just say no, you guys handle this one. But you and I both know that won't happen. You also know that your governments, when their alone and away from any microphones, are gald of it!!!

Okay, this is where you get to say...its your growing multi-national corperations that are now enslaving and colonizing forcing the prolitariate into a new dialectic for the onology where man is forced into a regressive colative inverse reactive to postulate his navel into a new 15th international.....blah blah blah

 

[intricatic]

I'd be very interested if you could find one reliable source for any of those three making any such a claim. (And by the way, I suspect you mean Lenin, not Lennon - two very different people indeed.) Certainly, Marx's "religion is the opiate of the people" line could be trotted out to show him as being opposed to religious belief (although apparently that's a misquote anyway), but if that's the case he'd hardly suggest that Communism/Marxism (the two are different, if only subtly) are religions.

FWIW, I think you'll find that the opinions of Marx, Engels and Lenin with respect to religious belief, including but not limited to Christianity, are in fact slightly less simplistically hostile than you imply. This article is rather an interesting read on the matter.)

But even if Marx, Engels and Lenin were as diametrically opposed to Christianity as you suggest, my argument is not about them per se, but about left-wing ideology itself, including (but not limited to) Marxism. Both Christian ethics and left-wing ideology are about standing up for, and providing for, the poor, the downtrodden, the disenfranchised, those who are unable to stand up for themselves. The ways in which they advocate doing it may be different, but the ends to which they work are, IMO, strikingly similar.

David.

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.
"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical, and juridicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.
The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

The Communist Manifesto

China on Religious Freedom


-----


Statement from the UN
"By integration of the spiritual and the material, we will realize that we
are One Family in One House. Humanity is One Family and the world is the
House we share. We inherit the world from our ancestors, and in turn we
pass it on to future generations. We live in it, sharing its resources, its
joys and sufferings. Therefore, it is our duty to take good care of our One
Human Family in One Planet Home. We must use our sense of One Family to
eradicate material and spiritual poverty, to empower our fellow human
beings spiritually and materially, and to encourage social development
through love and compassion."

This idea sounds wonderful at surface value, and to be turthful, the intent
is wonderful. However, the ultimate goal here is not to establish mutually
exclusive religions cooperating in peace with one another, but to blur the
lines between religions and make ...One Family in One House.

There are a lot of spiritualist cults out there trying to do this very same
thing; focusing more on similarities than differences, and treating the
differences as if they don't matter. When it comes to human beings, people,
living and breathing the same air, the differences are trivial, but when it
comes to religious following, the differences are absolutely crucial.


"We have assembled here at a very historic moment in time. We have
assembled here to set forth the foundation for the coming millennium.
Remember, only that structure can withstand the test of time, which is
built on a strong foundation. There are two types of conferences which we
shall symbolise. Envision a beautiful lake which is absolutely still. When
a big stone is thrown into a still lake, there is a huge splash, big waves
occur and the water is still again in a little while. Then there is the
other type, a small stone is carefully thrown into the center of the still
lake, it creates a ripple, and slowly but surely the ripple reaches the
embankment. Let us endeavour to be a part of this summit that creates this
ripple."
"We must make a commitment to practice values that lead to societal
cohesiveness. The sacred and secular are converging today in attesting to
the reality of the One Humanity. Thinking about ourselves as One helps
avoid the negative values of separation and otherness which lead to fear,
suspicion, and ultimate dehumanization, inviting violence without
conscience. The solution of contemporary global problems require global
solidarity. We must identify ourselves at more inclusive levels as members
of the One Humanity. We must change our attitudes, values and behaviors to
adapt ourselves to this new identity. We must choose leaders in all fields
who put a high value on changing themselves and developing the values and
skills needed for the changing times. We need leaders who are integrated thinkers to build an integrated world."



If you can't see the similarities, and note the seeming lack of differences between this statement and the Communist Manifesto as it speaks to religion, I dunno what to tell you.

 

[romanov]

Let us all agree on at least one point. This is not an grammar and spelling class. We are all typing on the fly and we may misspell a word here and there as well as abuse the rules of grammar. I haven't whipped out the red pen on you, so extend the same courtesy to me. Nuff said?

Alger Hiss, actually. Admittedly I've only had a few minutes to look up the details, but it seems he was alleged to be a Communist (which isn't quite the same thing as a Marxist). And it's rather overstating the case to describe him as a "key player in the creation of the UN".

Parts of the Venona project was released around 1995 or so. The US Army had conclusive proof of Hiss' guilt as far back as 1946? I can believe you could have missed that because it didn't get alot of press. I guess the New York Times didn't want to admit it had been defending a Soviet spy for 50 years

According to the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy, the complicity of Alger Hiss is settled by Venona, as is that of Harry Dexter White. Senator Moynihan said after release of the Commission's findings that government officials knew Hiss was guilty but did not speak up for fear of compromising the Venona project.

I lifted the above from Wikipedia 'cause I am lazy.

This is the part were you say it is all just opinion and has no real bearing on Hiss's guilt.

Bit of a false dichotomy you've got going there. What about a man who - inspired by a strong Christian faith - makes a case for redistribution of wealth and then doesn't take the limelight in the self-serving manner you depict?

Either way is he freely giving of himself or is he giving the shirt off someone elses back? Whether he is like a day light bank robbery or a masked hudlum in a back ally is not the point.

I'd be very interested if you could find one reliable source for any of those three making any such a claim.

Lenin http://www.pravoslavie.ru/enarticles/031230131852

Marx and Engles were more sutle in their aproach but with statement like:

Marx noted that the US constitution was avowedly secular, yet the US was “pre-eminently the country of religiosity”, teeming with all manner of sects and cults peddling their wares. (em****is added)

and other like comments you can see they definitely had a bias.

Then consider Marx's works are the main source for the communist manifesto with lines such as this:

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

It does not take a leap of faith to see Marxism/Communism is and would be hostile to faith in God.

Certainly, Marx's "religion is the opiate of the people" line could be trotted out to show him as being opposed to religious belief (although apparently that's a misquote anyway), but if that's the case he'd hardly suggest that Communism/Marxism (the two are different, if only subtly) are religions.

Is it a misquote in light of the facts or is it a re-write of history? Given Marx's belief in religion as a reaction of society rather than a divinely inspired word of God, I would say the latter.

Communism/Marxism (the two are different, if only subtly)

Yes, I know Marxism is an economic theory and Communism is a theory of governace. But, much like Locke and the original government of the US they are joined at the hip. That ploy does not work with me.

FWIW, I think you'll find that the opinions of Marx, Engels and Lenin with respect to religious belief, including but not limited to Christianity, are in fact slightly less simplistically hostile than you imply. This article is rather an interesting read on the matter.)

The link you provided went to a left wing propaganda web site. I would not consider that a credible source. I have notice of late the left wing in this country has suddenly discovered their religion too. That is just their attempt to win the hearts and minds of the useful idiots as Lenin used to say.

Marx and Engels admittedly were not openly hostile, but were not in favor of it either. Considering Lenin's actions in the Soviet Union I would hate to see what you think openly hostile would be.

But even if Marx, Engels and Lenin were as diametrically opposed to Christianity as you suggest, my argument is not about them per se, but about left-wing ideology itself, including (but not limited to) Marxism. Both Christian ethics and left-wing ideology are about standing up for, and providing for, the poor, the downtrodden, the disenfranchised, those who are unable to stand up for themselves. The ways in which they advocate doing it may be different, but the ends to which they work are, IMO, strikingly similar.

You consider having the government taking a gun to your head and taking what you earned through your work the moral equivalent of God's instruction to us to freely give of ourselves. If that is the case, that is pretty bizarre. If you don't help the poor or downtrodden freely of your own volition, how are you following God's law? Once the government has the money, how much is left for YOU to help the poor? Maybe you might be one of the poor yourself because of government theft. The government really has no vested interest in actually helping the poor. If the poor didn't exist or their schemes were wildly successful, they would have no reason to confiscate your money. Then there would be no way for them to increase their power, prestige and privilege using your money.

Now God teaches us that the poor will always be with us. But we don't or shouldn't use that as an advantage to increase our power, prestige and privilege. All glory goes to God. Can you say that of the local welfare office? That gets a nope.

 

[intricatic]

Is it a misquote in light of the facts or is it a re-write of history? Given Marx's belief in religion as a reaction of society rather than a divinely inspired word of God, I would say the latter.

Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

Lenin.

 

[NHB_MMA]

I think Christians should resist measures that appear to promote the climate ripe for the Antichrist.

Unfortunately, I fear that some almost promote it because they want to see Jesus return. Well, these are undoubtedly people that believe in a pre-tribulation rapture and they better hope they're right or they'll be tortured for their faith, at which point some will stay true and some will fold.