The UN: Turning From Doing Good to Promoting PURE EVIL

Growing up, I was taught that the UN was there to help find peaceful solutions for conflicts. I was also aware of UNICEF as helping children to have a better life. But these 2 stories show me that the UN is now anything but what it claims to be.

Short range, these things work to undermine morality, parental authority & everything that any healthy society is based on. In the long run, parts of these guidelines will be used to undermine national autonomy, take away the rights of Christians to speak out & will probably lead to wholescale persecution of Christians if they are implimented.

(Note: I am only going to share a part of the stories to emphasis my points, follow the link for the complete article)

A Report on the U.N.’s Shocking Sexuality Guidelines
by Janice Shaw Crouse

During the summer slump, two United Nations agencies — United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) — issued highly controversial new guidelines for sexuality education of children around the world. These groups have a long history of pushing “reproductive health care,” and the new report, International Guidelines on Sexuality Education, builds on an earlier report released by the International Planned Parenthood Federation to promote the “need and entitlement” for sexuality education for children beginning at age five.
Not surprisingly, both documents argue for “guaranteeing” the sexual rights of children and for integrating sexuality education as an essential aspect of human rights. The Center for Reproductive Rights is cited as the source for the assertion of the absolute human “right” of young people to have sexuality education, access to condoms, and abortion-on-demand.
Additionally, in the view of the United Nations, sexuality education is the responsibility of “education and health authorities” not parents. Teachers and doctors, so the liberal line goes, understand the big picture and have the conceptual understanding necessary — the “rights based approach” that excludes parents and incorporates appropriate “practitioner experience and expert opinion.” Excluding parents from the process keeps them from being aware of how frequently “sexuality education” indoctrinates against traditional values, especially “discrimination based on sexual orientation.”
At the outset, the report makes it clear that “good” sexuality education should “take priority over personal opinion” — which, being translated, means trample all over traditional morality.

Here is what they say is OK:

• Five- to eight-year-olds are told that “touching and rubbing one’s genitals ... ‘can feel pleasurable.’” They learn about “gender stereotypes” and that anybody (regardless of sexual status) can “raise a child and give it the love it deserves.”
• Nine- to twelve-year-olds learn how to get and use condoms, emergency contraception, the “signs and symptoms” of pregnancy, and all about sexual pleasure and orgasm. They learn that abortion is safe and discuss “homophobia, transphobia and abuse of power.” They learn about their rights — to decide for themselves about whether to become a parent and to have access to anti-retroviral therapy (ART).
• Twelve- to fifteen-year-olds are told about their right to safe abortions and post abortion care, how to use emergency contraception, and that the size and shape of the penis or breasts does not affect sexual pleasure.

Then hand in hand with that we have this:

UN Committee Asserts Special Rights for "Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity"
By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) A UN human rights committee recently told UN member states they must grant broad new human rights on the basis of “sexual orientation and gender identity.” By making sweeping changes to their national laws, policies and changing practices and attitudes within families and cultural institutions, or else they will be in “violation” of their obligations under international law.

The document, called “General Comment 20,” was released on July 2nd by the committee responsible for monitoring compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Going well beyond putting an end to criminal penalties against homosexuality or stopping violence and unjust discrimination, it claims that two new anti-discrimination categories exist even though sovereign states have repeatedly rejected these same categories in open UN debates.

The last paragraph shows us what 1 of the biggest immediate dangers is:

The committee of appointed “experts” has no enforcement capability. However, nations report to the committee which then publishes reports on whether the government is properly implementing the treaty. Their views are increasingly used by sympathetic jurists, government officials and activist to pressure their governments to change laws and policies.