So often, we fail to recognize the real implication of the things our leaders do. When we sign treaties with organizations such as the United Nations, we are not only entangling ourselves with the defense and security of others, but we are also opening ourselves up to their values.
So, if we think that something should be illegal, they may want to bring sanctions against us. So, to avoid this, we might compromise on our values to save money. Is this how a nation should determine their laws?
Now, we are seeing that there may be a collision between the UN and their members, who believe that religious freedom and expression are rights.
The United Nations envoy for gay rights has declared that when there is a clash between homosexual rights and religious liberty it must be recalled that “freedom of expression and religious freedom are not absolute rights and may be limited if necessary.”
In a recent public consultation, the UN’s newly appointed “independent expert” on the defense of LGTB rights, Vitit Muntarbhorn, said that negative moral judgments on homosexual activity were a recent phenomenon, stemming from “colonial law.”
When challenged about the clash between LGBT rights and religious freedom by Henk Jan van Schothorst of the Transatlantic Christian Council, Muntarbhorn said that religious freedom is not absolute and must yield to homosexual rights.
“There are some absolute rights,” he said in apparent reference to LGBT rights, “but there are some that are not absolute.” He went on to explain that “freedom of expression and expression of religion” are not absolute rights and that they can be curtailed when necessary.
This simply means that Vitit wants to continue to move in the direction that the U.S. has already begun to move, and that is the notion that freedom of religious expression is a privilege and not a right. If you say something against sodomites, based on your religion, then the sodomite’s sexual preference trumps your religious freedom. You are only free to exercise your religion as long as you say nothing against anyone.
If this is not dealt with now, while in its infancy, this will be something else the UN is going to be shoving down our throats.
Article posted with permission from Constitution.com