---

Additional Titles

Harry Potter and The Postmodern Church

Popular Occultism and the Consensus Process

Legalized Mind Control  Part 1

 

 

By Berit Kjos

May 4, 2005

NewsWithViews.com

From UNESCO's Declaration of Principles on Tolerance:

"Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures... It is not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement."

"Tolerance involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism...."

"Tolerance... means that one's views are not to be imposed on others."

"Intolerance... is a global threat."[1]

David Parker didn't want his 6-year-old son indoctrinated with homosexual values in his kindergarten class. Claiming what he thought were his parental rights, he told school officials to allow his child to opt-out of the lessons and classroom discussions on gay marriage. But his request was denied. During a scheduled meeting with the principal and the city�s Director of Education on April 27, the father was arrested. Charged with �trespassing� at his son�s elementary school, he spent the night in jail. The same day, the father wrote the following statement:

�I, David Parker, am the father of a kindergarten student at Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Massachusetts. Since the beginning of this school year, my wife and I have learned that school materials and discussions about gay-headed households/same-sex union issues have been exposed to the children. There are definitive plans to increase the teacher/staff/adult mediated discussions of these subjects.

"We have officially stated on many occasions�to the Lexington school administration�a request that we be notified when these discussions are planned, and want our 6-year-old opted out of such situations when arising 'spontaneously'. Our parental requests for our own child were flat-out denied with no effort at accommodation. In our meeting on April 27, I insisted that such accommodation be made and refused to leave the meeting room. I was informed that I would be arrested.�[2]

Such assaults on freedom have multiplied lately. Earlier this year, the University of Colorado told Professor Phil Mitchell, a Christian who has a doctorate in American social history, that his contract would not be renewed after this year. A winner of the prestigious SOAR Award for teacher of the year, Mitchell was accused of being racist. "'That would have come as a surprise to my black children,' said Mitchell, who has nine children, two of them adopted African-Americans."[3]

Yet, the University of Colorado continues to defend the right of "free speech" for its controversial liberal professor Ward Churchill, now a hero to staff and students who share his hatred for America. In his recent article, "An ill-bred Professor, and a bad situation," David Horowitz compares his own cool reception at the Honolulu campus of the University of Hawaii with the exuberant celebration of the revolutionary professor from Colorado:

"The student who invited me to the University on behalf of the College Republicans -- I will call him Jamie -- is a political science major. In anticipation of my visit, Jamie had asked Professor Hiller if his Department would be one of the sponsors of my talk and if the Department would host a reception for me. ...

"...the only reason Professor Hiller consented to the first request was because Ward Churchill had spoken at the University weeks before to a very bad press. In fact to propitiate the backlash was the only reason the university itself put up a modest honorarium for my speech. The agenda was to show how 'diverse' and 'fair' they were. ...

"Before Churchill arrived professors in political science and other departments vied with each other for the honor of introducing him, and attended in droves, and encouraged their students to do likewise. No professors showed up for my speech. Instead there were about forty protesters who brought signs saying 'No academic freedom for fascists' and similar slogans."[4]

These cases fit the pattern established through the United Nations more than half a century ago. On December 10, 1948, its General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and called the participating countries "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."[5]

At first glance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sounds good, as do all the intrusive UN human rights treaties. Article 18 upholds "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion..." Article 19 affirms "the right to freedom of opinion and expression... and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

But Article 29 states that "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." In other words, these "rights" or "freedoms" don't apply to those who would criticize the UN or its policies. Your rights would be conditioned on your compliance. Only if your message supports official ideology are you free to speak it. As Andrei Vishinsky wrote in The Law of the Soviet State, "There can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of socialism."[6]

Article 29 also warns us that "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Do you wonder whose morality would best serve the "general welfare in a democratic society"? Should the "right" of the homosexual not to be offended supersede the right of Christians to warn others about the deadly dangers of the gay lifestyle? Or should the rights of public school teachers to present immoral or occult lessons in their classrooms supersede the right of concerned parents to protect their children?

The last question was raised in San Ramon, California back in 1988, when parents opposed the classroom use of R-rated movies. The movies were stopped-for a season. But four teachers, the local teacher's union, and the California Teachers Association sued the school board and superintendent for (1) violating their constitutional right to free speech in the classroom and (2) for allegedly heeding the religious view of a small minority of citizens. The teachers won. On May 18, 1990, a California Superior Court decided that a teacher's constitutional rights supersede the concerns of parents and the school board.[7]

Like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child uses manipulative and misleading language. According to Article 13, "The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers..."[8] In other words, parents have no authority to keep a child from reading a sexually explicit magazine or visiting pagan chat rooms on the Internet.

While parents lose their right to set safe boundaries for their children, the State assumes full power to "protect" the child from contrary parents and define the rules. Thus Article 13 concludes with: "This right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others; or for protection of national security or public order."

Keep in mind, "national security or public order" is based on the UN vision of social solidarity, a socialist oneness in which shared values are defined by globalist leaders. In their minds, anything less than solidarity in every community could stir conflict or incite violence. In this context, dissenters become foes; absolute beliefs or facts that clash with its vision of unity become threats; and the uncompromising truths of biblical Christianity become intolerable -- even dangerous -- to public safety.

Likewise, if parents restrict their child's "right to freedom of association" or their child's ambiguous rights to "privacy" or "conscience and religion" (Articles 14 -16), they would break the new rules and risk losing their child to the state's "protection" services. That's already happing in Europe. With our Supreme Court seeking guidelines from international decisions, it may soon happen here.[9] [See Ban truth - Reap Tyranny]

But, you might argue, the U.S. never ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It doesn't really matter. A December 10, 1998 White House Press Release stated that "on the historic anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, President Clinton announced several policy initiatives to advance human rights at home and abroad." It was accompanied by a "Human Rights Executive Order that strengthens our efforts to implement human rights treaties, and creates an Administration Working Group to coordinate these efforts."

The President summarized the scope of his Executive Order 13107, "The Implementation of Human Rights Treaties" in its opening paragraph:

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and bearing in mind the obligations of the United States pursuant to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and other relevant treaties concerned with the protection and promotion of human rights to which the United States is now or may become a party in the future, it is hereby ordered."[10]

Notice that it includes "other relevant treaties concerned with the protection and promotion of human rights..." In today's flexible legal climate, it could easily be interpreted to include such unratified treaties as UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as other treaties "to which" we "may become party in the future." As you read its precepts below, consider whether this Executive Order protects human "rights" or oppressive "responsibilities."

SECTION 1(a) commits the U.S. "fully to respect and implement its obligations under the international human rights treaties to which it is a party, including the ICCPR, the CAT, and the CERD."

SECTION 4 establishes "an Interagency Working Group on Human Rights Treaties for the purpose of providing guidance, oversight, and coordination with respect to questions concerning the adherence to and implementation of human rights obligations and related matters." It would be chaired by the "designee of the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs."

The functions of this Interagency Working Group would include "(iv) developing effective mechanisms to ensure that legislation proposed by the Administration is reviewed for conformity with international human rights obligations and that these obligations are taken into account in reviewing legislation under consideration by the Congress as well;"

Apparently, the United Nations and its Human Rights treaties would replace the U.S. Constitution as our main standard and filter for legal action.

SECTION 4(v) calls for "mechanisms for improving the monitoring of the actions by the various States, Commonwealths, and territories of the United States... for their conformity with relevant treaties, the provision of relevant information for reports and other monitoring purposes, and the promotion of effective remedial mechanisms;"

Compare this Executive Order with UNESCO's Declaration of Principles on Tolerance. It, too, called for monitoring: "analysis of root causes [of intolerance] and effective countermeasures, as well as research and monitoring...."[1]

The monitoring will, in part, be carried out by the new "mental health screening" programs of children and new mothers. First implemented in Illinois, it doesn't end there. According to Dr. Lawrence D. Cuddy, "Leslie LaPrise (Information Center Manager for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the federal Department of Health and Human Services) sent an e-mail stating that 'all the states are moving toward implementation of the New Freedom Commission report.'" Cuddy, Mental Health, Education and Social Control, Part 7

The last two points in UNESCO's Declaration on Tolerance call for "rational tolerance teaching methods that will address the cultural, social, economic, political and religious sources of intolerance-major roots of violence and exclusion." No person would be free from the duty to conform to UN standards through its manipulative program for "shaping... attitudes of openness, mutual listening and solidarity in schools and universities, and through non-formal education... at home and in the workplace."[1]

The main enemy to the new global solidarity is Biblical Christianity with its absolute truths and moral standards. Unless Christianity puts on a more inclusive face and is willing to conform to the new rules for global solidarity, it will be persecuted. As UNESCO's Declaration on the Role of Religion in the Promotion of a Culture of Peace tells us: "Our communities of faith have a responsibility to encourage conduct imbued with wisdom, compassion, sharing, charity, solidarity, and love; inspiring one and all to choose the path of freedom and responsibility. Religions must be a source of helpful energy."[11]

Sure enough. Christianity is reinventing itself. In the international arena, vast Christian networks now work hand in glove with UN aims to screen, monitor and remediate (through the dialectic process in facilitated small groups) every human resource around the world. [See "The Global quest for Solidarity"] While the UN measures the outcomes in individual communities under the banner of "social capital," church management systems simply build the now standard data tracking systems for human resource development and placement for service. Meanwhile, parents and children who refuse to conform can expect increasing pressure and persecution. [12][See "Dealing with Resisters"]

"If you were of the world, the world would love its own," said Jesus. "Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.... If they persecuted Me they will persecute you... for they do not know the One who sent Me." John 15:19-21

The answer to the age-old question raised by the author of Psalm 2 below is no longer hidden. But the spiritual battle rages as fiercely as ever:

Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord... saying, 'Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us.� He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall hold them in derision. Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, and distress them in His deep displeasure....

Now therefore, be wise, O kings; be instructed, you judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.... Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him." Psalm 2:1-12

ENDNOTES

1. UNESCO's Declaration of Principles on Tolerance
2. "Lexington, Mass., father of 6-year-old arrested." For more information, contact: Brian Camenker, Article 8 Alliance
3. Colorado to dump Christian prof
4. David Horowitz, "An ill-bred Professor, and a bad situation"
5. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
6. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1968), Volume V, page 164.
7. I attended a San Ramon community forum convened to discuss this issue and talked with parents and teachers involved.
8. "UN Convention on the Rights of the Child"
9. "Ban truth - Reap Tyranny"
10. This link was accessible in 1999, but was apparently removed at the end of the Clinton administration.
11. "UN Convention on the Rights of the Child"
12. See "Spiritual Gifts and Community Service"

 

� 2005 Berit Kjos - All Rights Reserved

 

Order Berit's book Brave New Schools