Monday, September 23, 2013

The Consequences of Making Morality a “Crime against Humanity”

Media outlets widely reported on a man who became the focus of state and national condemnation, a , calls from the NAACP for the Secret Service and FBI to investigate him, and ultimately a public destruction of his reputation. And what horrible crime did he commit to warrant this punishment? He wore a mask of President Obama while performing as a rodeo clown.
Photograph © Paul Hair, 2011
lifetime ban from the Missouri State Fair

Some people have defended the man and said that the reaction against him was an overreaction. It’s good to see people defend normal free speech but the use of the word “overreaction” in defending the man is an odd choice. Would any sort of negative reaction against him have been warranted? Did he do something that had never been done before and which hasn’t been publicly acceptable for anyone to do with any other president in history? Of course not. Yet the damage has been done. I wonder if any other rodeo clown will ever think of doing such a thing again.

And even as some people disapprove of how the rodeo clown has been treated, there is no national movement to condemn his condemnation, or intense outrage that will form an ongoing effort to destroy attempts to destroy people’s livelihoods and reputations for engaging in free speech that has always previously been acceptable. There is no large-scale genuine moral outrage at the large-scale phony moral outrage leveled at the rodeo clown.

In other words, America has been remade.

And the rodeo clown is not the only one who has experienced this fundamental change in America. Nor is the demonization of legitimate free speech the only fundamental change. Morality itself is being attacked and destroyed.

U.S. District Judge Michael A. Ponsor issued a ruling in August that allows a lawsuit supported by a George Soros-backed group (the Center for Constitutional Right—CCR) to proceed against Scott Lively (a U.S. citizen living in Massachusetts) on behalf of Sexual Minorities of Uganda (SMUG), which is located in Uganda. The CCR issued a statement following Judge Ponsor’s ruling. The statement reads in part:
Today, in a first-of-its kind case brought by a Ugandan LGBTI advocacy organization against a prominent U.S. anti-gay extremist, a federal judge ruled that persecution on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is a crime against humanity and that the fundamental human rights of LGBTI people are protected under international law. The ruling means that the case brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) on behalf of Sexual Minorities of Uganda (SMUG), a Uganda-based coalition of LGBTI rights and advocacy groups, can move forward over defendant Scott Lively’s request to dismiss the lawsuit.
“Widespread, systematic persecution of LGBTI people constitutes a crime against humanity that unquestionably violates international norms,” said Judge Michael Ponsor. “The history and current existence of discrimination against LGBTI people is precisely what qualifies them as a distinct targeted group eligible for protection under international law. The fact that a group continues to be vulnerable to widespread, systematic persecution in some parts of the world simply cannot shield one who commits a crime against humanity from liability.”
You did not misread that statement. The government of the United States of America has allowed a lawsuit, brought about on behalf of a foreign organization, to proceed against a U.S. citizen for his support of morality—a position that now is legitimately allowed to be challenged as a “crime against humanity.”

This comes after years of the United States being an advocate for the same-sex agenda. Media outlets regularly carry stories of the U.S. actively promoting the same-sex agenda across the globe (even when it damages foreign relations) or when it explicitly attacks theological beliefs:
On Tuesday, Clinton said promoting the global acceptance of “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people” is “one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time,” likening the effort to ending racial, sexual, or religious discrimination.
She noted that perhaps the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.” These objections, she said, are “not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.”
She stated worldwide “opinions are still evolving” on homosexuality as they did with slavery, and “what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights.”
“In each of these cases, we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us,” she said.
The U.S. has in fact declared same-sex sexual relations a “universal human right.” And the U.N. has essentially done the same.

So perhaps the Ponsor ruling against Lively isn’t that surprising—especially since it follows the U.S. Supreme Court declaring that those who support morality are, as Justice Scalia correctly interpreted it, “enemies of the human race.”

Nonetheless, this is outrageous. But this outrageousness seems have to outraged few Americans. And it gets worse.

Now that the United States has declared engaging in same-sex sexual relations a “universal human right,” that anyone who opposes such behavior is an “enemy of the human race,” and is open to considering anyone who opposes such behavior as committing a “crime against humanity,” one must consider how this will affect the world in the future.

And a good place to start that consideration is with Samantha Power and the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

The U.S. recently appointed Samantha Power as ambassador to the United Nations. James Simpson gives some background information on Power in his, “The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ Doctrine”:
R2P’s most vocal American proponent is Samantha Power, who was, until very recently, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights. . . .
Power is widely credited as the main proponent of the Obama administration’s decision to intervene in Libya.
Simpson explains what R2P is earlier in his article (emphasis mine):
The U.S. intervention in Libya has been widely interpreted as one of the first formal tests of a new United Nations doctrine known as “Responsibility to Protect” or R2P. . . .
. . . These scenarios may help explain why radical philanthropist George Soros supports R2P through grants from his various foundations to the World Federalist Movement (WFM). . . .
On the U.N. website we are told: . . .
“The State carries the primary responsibility for protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and their incitement;
“The international community has a responsibility to encourage and assist States in fulfilling this responsibility;
“The international community has a responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.”
So not only is the United Nations R2P backed by George Soros (as is the lawsuit against Lively) but one of its concepts is that the “international community” has a responsibility to protect people across the globe from “crimes against humanity” (an accusation leveled at Lively in the lawsuit against him) when sovereign nations fail to do so (as determined by the United Nations). And who is the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.? It’s Samantha Power, a key advocate for R2P and someone who has already used this concept as justification to wage war in Libya.

The lawsuit against Lively accusing him of “crimes against humanity” suddenly becomes a bit more worrisome.

So am I suggesting that the U.S. and U.N. will wage a physical war to spread the same-sex agenda across the globe?

No. Or probably not, anyway.

After all, who would have thought that following the attacks on the United States by Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2001 the United States would have waged multiple wars to install officially Islamic theocracies in Afghanistan (where it also allowed the destruction of Christianity) and Iraq? Or who would have thought that the United States would have been fundamentally changed so much that legislators now can openly suggest removing children from parents who don’t want them engaging in same-sex sexual behavior? Or that public officials would be able to wish for Christians to “burn in hell” for supporting morality? Or who would have thought that a growing number of people in the United States are essentially declaring the same-sex agenda a religion of which everyone must worship or be destroyed?

So while some people may enjoy writing novels that warn against a Christian theocratic takeover of the United States, perhaps it would make more sense for someone to write a novel about an atheist, humanist, and/or secularist theocracy (with humans as their own gods) taking over the United States and warring on Christian “enemies of the state” . . . especially as people begin talking about the advancement of the same-sex agenda in increasingly militant terms.

But again, in all seriousness, the U.S. and the U.N. would never use physical force to advance the same-sex agenda. Right?

Of course not . . . but then again . . . what is it that nations do to enemies of the human race? Why they kill them.

No comments:

Post a Comment