August 9, 2023

UNITED NATIONS: UN Expert Freedom Of Religion, Conscience, Or Belief MUST YIELD To Equality For LGBTQ+ Persons. Traditional Believers Stoke The Flames Of Violence, Discrimination, And Exclusion.

The irony of the Commie Democrats in the Biden adminstration 👇 accusing Communist North Korea for the same damn thing they are doing to American's "right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion". The Commie far-Left are pushing their totalitarian gender ideology agenda against all parents, against all religions, and against anyone who questions them in America. They are targeting children in public schools as young as age 3 to be indoctrinated with the totalitarian twisted gender ideology. They are targeting our military to comply with the totalitarian twisted gender ideology. They are forcing employers to target employees to comply with their totalitarian twisted gender ideology.  They are forcing religious organizations to comply with their totalitarian gender ideology. Anyone who speaks up against their totalitarian far-Left LGBTQ+ religious cult ideology may be arrested for hate speech or fired from their job or have their life completely destroyed. How is that not any different from North Korea's treatment of anyone who steps out of the totalitarian line?

According to Wikipedia: What happens to dissenters in North Korea? Once citizens are suspected of disrespectful or disloyalty to the leadership, guilty of political or ideological crimes, they are sent to the prisons as well."

I just found out that the China Communist Party sends dissidents who publicly critize them to mental hospitals against their will. For those of you who don't what dissident means, it describes "a person who opposes official policy, especially that of an authoritarian state."

According Merriam-Webster dictionary: The meaning of DISSIDENT is disagreeing especially with an established religious or political system, organization, or belief [such as the radical trans ideology].
(emphasis mine)
Arirang News published May 15, 2023: Right to freedom of thought and religion continues to be denied in N. Korea: U.S. report.

The U.S. Department of State on Tuesday released its annual report on the status of religious freedom in every country. The report raised concerns about the denial of the right to freedom of thought and religion in North Korea. Lee Shi-hoo starts us off.

“The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion continues to be denied" in North Korea, "with no alternative belief systems tolerated by the authorities” read the U.S. Department of State's annual report to Congress on International Religious Freedom. The 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom, which describes the status of religious freedom in every country, released Monday, showed special concern for the violation of the right to freedom of thought in North Korea.

It highlighted that "the situation had not fundamentally changed since the publication of the 2014 UN Commission of Inquiry (COI) report on human rights in the DPRK, which found that authorities almost completely denied the rights to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion."

It also said that the authorities in many instances committed human rights violations that constituted crimes against humanity. The regime reportedly continued to execute, torture, arrest, and physically abuse individuals for religious activities. It also notes that COVID-19 restrictions on travel to and from the country further reduced information about conditions, making details on cases of abuse and estimates involving religious groups difficult to verify. However, data was provided by the NGOs Korea Future, Open Doors USA, and the Database Center for North Korean Human Rights to show the severity of persecution of religious groups.

As for China, the report cited religious groups, NGOs, and international media reports that pointed out that the government is continuing to assert control over religious groups and restrict activities it perceives as threatening to the state or CCP interests. The U.S. Department of State submits the reports in accordance with the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. North Korea and China are on the Department of State's list of Countries of Particular Concern. Lee Shi-hoo, Arirang News.
CNSNews published December 7, 2011: Hillary Clinton: 'Religious Beliefs' Are Standing in the Way of Protecting LGBT. Religious beliefs and cultural values do not justify the failure to uphold the human rights of homosexuals, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the United Nations in Geneva on Tuesday.
Here is an excerpt from the video above: Hillary Clinton said, "The third and 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."
The Washington Stand
written by Arielle Del Turco
Tuesday June 27, 2023

Last week, the U.N.’s Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity, Victor Madrigal-Borloz, presented a report to the 53rd Session of the U.N. Human Rights Council arguing that religious freedom is “not incompatible with equality for LGBT persons.” However, by reading Madrigal-Borloz’s report, it appears that his understanding of “compatibility” means that long-held religious beliefs and traditions must be subservient to the LGBT ideology.

In his remarks, Madrigal-Borloz stated: “Paying attention to the voices and practices of inclusive communities can help to shift narratives claiming that the exercise of freedom of religion or belief is incompatible with the equal enjoyment of human rights by LGBT persons.” His report was received warmly by many of the member states whose diplomats were present in the room. Yet, Human Rights Council members should beware of the blatant violations of religious freedom that Madrigal-Borloz’s report is promoting.

The core idea of the report is deeply concerning: that religious communities and LGBT ideology would not come into conflict if only religious communities would interpret their own doctrine correctly. Madrigal-Borloz put it this way:

“In some cases, religious narratives have been deliberately used to justify violence and discrimination — often in defiance of the doctrine of those faiths, and also beyond the scope of the right freedom of religion or belief.” (Emphasis added.)

So, now if we hold to biblical truth, we are apparently just misinterpreting our own doctrines. He insinuates that religious believers who do not embrace the LGBT ideology are misinterpreting their own religion. It is the height of arrogance for a U.N. expert to suggest that his interpretation — informed by the LGBT activist groups who submitted comments for his report — understands the teachings of major world religions better than their own religious leaders or the thousands of years of tradition that often inform their beliefs. This sows seeds of divisions inside religious communities, pitting so-called “LGBT-affirming” religious adherents against those who hold to a more traditional understanding of their religious texts and doctrines.

The report goes further in a section on “hate speech and incitement,” citing submissions from activist organizations which “expressed concern about interpretations of religious doctrines that place homosexuality and gender nonconformity within a discourse of immorality and sin, describing the power that such discourse can have on the social acceptance of LGBT people, particularly when propagated by religious and belief leaders.” (Emphasis added.) Madrigal-Borloz not only haphazardly perpetrates the idea that religious groups are interpreting their own religions incorrectly, but also that articulating their understanding of sin can be considered hate speech or even incitement to violence.

The report bemoans laws that affirm natural marriage and family structures. In one instance, it criticizes Hungary for having “passed a law that effectively banned adoption by same-sex couples, applying a strict Christian conservative viewpoint to the legal definition of a family.” Yet, this is not simply a “strict Christian conservative” viewpoint; it is one that affirms natural law and biological reality. Painting this as an extreme Christian position ignores the thousands of years of human history that recognized natural family structures, including those that were not shaped by Christian ideas.

As if anticipating this argument, the report goes on to state, “The concept of a ‘natural’ order as the guiding principle of human and social existence is also present in conservative doctrine.” This is a laughable attempt to make basic reality seem evil or scary. The word “natural” does not deserve scare quotes — it should be accepted and respected.

In an obvious attack on religious freedom, the report openly takes aim at religious exemptions. For example, it notes that in some countries, “including the United States and Australia, government-funded foster care and adoption agencies can reject prospective families based on sexual orientation, gender identity and faith.” The report rejects the idea that religious institutions should have any autonomy regarding their internal policies, arguing that this could hinder “diversity-oriented education, comprehensive sexuality education, and gender equality.”

The report cites unspecified “obligations” under international human rights law to “ensure that LGBT consumers are not discriminated against.” It quoted the U.N. Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, who said, “[I]t is not permissible for individuals or groups to invoke ‘religious liberty’ to perpetuate discrimination against … lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex persons, when it comes to the provision of goods or services in the public sphere.” The report specifically alludes to incidents in the U.S. where wedding vendors were asked to create a unique product for same-sex marriages, which went against their religious conviction.

Perhaps most surprising is the report’s emphasis on “access to spirituality” for LGBT-identifying people. After noting that many LGBT-identifying still consider religion to be part of their identity, the report states:
“To leave, and sometimes be forced to leave [a religious community] because of exclusionary practices or teachings can have significant implications for identity and spiritual wellbeing. In many cases, the painful departure from their religious or spiritual community has life-long impact on the mental wellbeing; in others, the option is not just to leave: it can be the taking of one’s life.”
Religious communities should not be cruel to those choosing LGBT lifestyles over their faith. However, it is inappropriate for a U.N. expert to suggest that religious communities should change their beliefs and practices in order to benefit those who wish to violate religious tenets and still identify with a given faith. This paragraph also ominously suggests that anything short of affirming LGBT identities and behaviors — regardless of whether it violates their religious texts or traditions — could lead to mental illness or even suicide. That accusation — which the report offers no evidence for — is a bully tactic that intentionally vilifies religious communities to coerce them to change.

At the outset, the introduction to the report states that it will explore how religious freedom intersects with “all other rights on the basis of which lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and other gender diverse (LGBT) persons have a right to a life free from violence and discrimination.” Of course, LGBT-identifying people should not be subject to violence — they should be treated with the same human dignity we are all owed as image bearers of God. But Madrigal-Borloz wants more than that; he wants faux “rights” for LGBT-identifying people elevated over universally agreed upon human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, such as religious freedom (Article 18) and freedom or speech (Article 19). This is the exact opposite of what the Human Rights Council should be doing. If the Human Rights Council has any shred of credibility remaining, they would reject this fundamentally flawed report.

Nearly every line from Madrigal-Borloz’s report is troubling. It represents a bold insistence that religion must be subservient to LGBT ideology. If you only have the freedom to hold and live out certain LGBT-approved religious beliefs and practices, then you have no religious freedom at all.
The Christian Institute published May 26, 2023: LGBT Pride: A new religion? With its own dogmas, rituals, calendar and even language, has LGBT Pride become an established religion? We asked Revd Dr Matthew Roberts of Trinity Church York.
CBN News published May 7, 2023: London Court Rules 'No Opting-Out' for 4-Year-Old Forced to Join LGBTQ Pride Parade.

A primary school in London recently forced a 4-year-old Christian boy to participate in an LGBTQ pride parade. When the parents sued the school claiming their religious and parental rights had been violated, a central London court ruled against them. Appearing on this week's episode of The Global Lane, the boy's mom, Izzy Montague suggested she's appealing the court's decision because no child should be forced to violate their religious beliefs to celebrate gay pride.
written by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D
Thursday June 22, 2023

A U.N.-certified “expert” on sexual orientation and gender identity declared Wednesday that religious communities must yield to the demands of LGBT persons to avoid charges of violence and discrimination.

Freedom of religion or belief need not be incompatible with equality for LGBT persons, Victor Madrigal-Borloz asserted in his address to the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, as long as religious groups accept the claims of gay and transgender persons.

Religious narratives clashing with the beliefs and lifestyle choices of LGBT persons, however, are “beyond the scope of the right freedom of religion or belief,” said Madrigal-Borloz, dubbed by the U.N. “the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Predictably, the U.N. Council did not call on an expert in religious freedom to offer a counterpoint to the position of Madrigal-Borloz.

As a model for religious believers, Madrigal-Borloz held up the example of “the voices and practices of inclusive communities,” meaning religious groups that accept same-sex marriage and gender fluidity.

Traditional believers such as Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Roman Catholics, and conservative Christians, who offer a negative moral judgment on LGBT claims and practices stoke the flames of violence, discrimination, and exclusion, he suggested, which “can have severe and negative consequences for the personhood, dignity, and spirituality of LGBT persons.”

In particular, Madrigal-Borloz voiced concern about “interpretations of religious doctrines that place homosexuality and gender nonconformity within a discourse of immorality and sin, describing the power that such discourse can have on the social acceptance of LGBT people, particularly when propagated by religious and belief leaders.”

The target of particular opprobrium in the expert’s address was the nation of Hungary, which passed a law in 2020 “that effectively banned adoption by same-sex couples, applying a strict Christian conservative viewpoint to the legal definition of a family.”

The amendment “altered the constitutional definition of families to exclude transgender and other LGBT individuals, defining the basis of the family as ‘marriage and the parent-child relationship,’ and declaring that ‘the mother is a woman, and the father is a man,’” he lamented.

“The expert underscored that the right to freedom of religion or belief must not be used as an excuse for violence or discriminatory denial of the human rights of LGBT persons,” the U.N. report stated, while failing to make the vital distinction between encouraging violence — which all major religious bodies reject — and refusing to accept the pretensions of the LGBT lobby.

Throughout his address, in fact, Madrigal-Borloz never referred to “discrimination” without appending it to “violence,” thus precluding the possibility of analyzing these distinct terms separately.

Examples of “hate speech” against LGBT persons, Madrigal-Borloz contended, include “scapegoating them for controversies, positing them as a threat to the traditional family, and interpreting religious doctrines to exclude and promote violence and discrimination against homosexuality and gender nonconformity.”

According to criteria from the expert’s statement, the Christian Bible would be full of anti-LGBT hate speech and therefore would be unacceptable as a religious text.

“The right to freedom of religion or belief is a shield to protect the lawful manifestation of personal convictions, as well as to protect the right not to be part of a particular belief or subjected to human rights violations claimed to be justified by it,” he argued.

Madrigal-Borloz also criticized efforts to accord any special status to religious freedom within the hierarchy of human rights, such as the Catholic Church has sought to do. Pope John Paul II, for instance, called religious freedom “the source and synthesis” of all human rights.

In his address, Madrigal-Borloz specifically attacked the United States Commission on Unalienable Rights, which released its Report on Unalienable Rights in 2020.

Religious liberty enjoys “primacy in the American political tradition — as an unalienable right, an enduring limit on state power, and a protector of seedbeds of civic virtues,” the report declared.

“There is good reason to worry that the prodigious expansion of human rights has weakened rather than strengthened the claims of human rights and left the most disadvantaged more vulnerable,” it stated.

Madrigal-Borloz also took issue with “religious-based exemptions” from laws requiring participation in LGBT activities, citing the case of the United States where “foster care and adoption agencies can reject prospective families based on sexual orientation, gender identity and faith.”

He similarly excoriated the exemptions given to persons who object to celebrating LGBT couples by baking cakes, hosting receptions, or printing invitations or who refuse for religious reasons to “print materials for Pride Parades.”

The expert went on to decry conscientious objection to “prescribing cross-sex hormones,” a practice that poses “a threat to LGBT persons in substantially restricting the spaces in which they can access necessary services.”

Worthy of great praise, on the contrary, is humanism, Madrigal-Borloz proposed, because it “recognizes that sex is an evolved trait, with no intrinsic meaning” and “does not require rigidly defined sex or gender roles.”

The Independent Expert recommends that faith-based leaders “recognize that sexual orientation and gender identity are diverse around the world and that gender manifests differently in many cultural and social structures and practices, including that many cultures recognize more genders than the male-female binary,” he declared.

No comments: