Did Somebody Hear a Trumpet?
Vol: 20 Issue: 31 Saturday, May 31, 2003
The European Union is currently struggling to develop a new Constitution to accommodate its expansion from fifteen to twenty-five new members. One of the stumbling blocks for the conventioneers is exactly how to express European religious values.
Many of the ten new nations, especially Poland, wanted ‘Christian values’ expressly mentioned. The secularist states (led by the French) argue that ‘pluralist, modern Europe’ is too sophisticated and worldly to make reference to religion.
The ‘secularist’ states in general opposition to references to Christianity or God are the original ten states of the Western European Union, so there is little doubt as to the final outcome of the dispute.
‘Old’ Europe is patterning its Constitution along the lines of the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights, which also excludes references to God or Christianity, instead guaranteeing ‘freedom of religion’ — unless you are a Christian.
In December, 1948, the General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UDHR was designed to incorporate the lofty principles of the US Bill of Rights, but deliberately avoided enshrining the purposes that inspired the US document.
The US Constitution is carefully worded and constructed. It points out that governments cannot grant rights; rather it says these rights were granted by the Creator. The framers of the Constitution felt that, because these rights were God-given, the recognition of that fact limited the power of government.
The UDHR is designed to do exactly the opposite. Under its terms, the UN grants these rights, because the UN does not acknowledge a Creator.
The whole purpose of the UDHR is to empower the United Nations with the authority to govern.
The UDHR says in Article II:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
So far, it sounds pretty much like the Constitution. But, as you will see, the UDHR gives rights in one hand, as it takes them away in another. Paragraph 2 continues:
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Although the paragraph above sounds like a good idea, look at it more closely. No distinction… on the basis of any other limitation of sovereignty. Although the UDHR grants us rights , those rights are global. They sound good, but they remove from any nation (including ours) the right to govern according to the will of the people of that nation.
In the UN utopia, the rights of the individual supersede the rights of the nation, but not the rights of the UN.
The destruction of the sovereign rights of the nation-state is carefully buried inside idealistic principles against which no sane person can argue. The goal of the UN is not the protection of individual rights, but rather the destruction of the nation state.
Article 12 of the UDHR says:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation.
Once again, a principle that sounds too good to argue against.
But what constitutes attacks upon…honor or reputation? In answering charges against him during the endless scandal investigations, he claimed the press coverage of the investigation was a personal attack against his honor and reputation.
The UDHR would leave the UN to decide: Is the honor and reputation of the President of the United States above scrutiny by the people who elected him?
The Founding Fathers of the US explicitly recognized the necessity of a free press to prevent government abuse of power. Does this Article do away with the Constitutional 1st Amendment right to freedom of the press? Absolutely.
At this point, you may be wondering where I am going with this. Well, for one thing, this document makes a presupposition that I find disquieting, to say the least. It presupposes that we can trust government to act in our best interests.
History teaches the opposite. In fact, the Constitution recognizes implicitly that government cannot be trusted; that it is by nature oppressive and that it is must be limited as much as possible. Constitutional lawyers call it our Constitutional system of checks and balances.
The UDHR grants rights in one hand, and takes them away in another. All the goals and ideals here seem noble and good, even if I seemed to get a little paranoid about the national sovereignty issue and the freedom of the press.
The needs of government — even global government — change as times change. What happens to our UN given rights in the event they interfere with the UN s purposes in the future? Article 29, paragraphs 2 and 3 take care of all that in a single sentence.
2. 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.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Take a look at that again! All those rights and freedoms, because they are granted by the United Nations, rather than being inalienable rights given by God, can be taken away by the United Nations, by the simple expedient of claiming they conflict with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
In the early days of Christianity, the Roman authorities made a tactical decision to deal with the new Christian religion by killing off its adherents. A popular form of entertainment in those days was watching the Christians being devoured by lions.
But what was the problem?
Surely the Romans couldn t object to Christians adding another god to the list — the Romans already had plenty of gods and goddesses. One more couldn t hurt.
Another god, more or less, didn t make any difference. But Jesus claimed He was the only God, and that No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.
It follows then, that the Roman polytheist was doomed, according to Christian theology. The population in those days found that sort of doctrine threatening, even hateful.
In fact, that was the charge under which they were persecuted — they called it a hate crime.
The claims of Christianity make it the enemy of every single other religious belief structure on earth, because, according to Jesus, any worship that denies Him is worship of the devil.
Under the terms of the final article of the UDHR, Christianity runs contrary to the goals and purposes of universal brotherhood as espoused by the United Nations.
Therefore, not only is Christianity’s freedom to practice according to its basic doctrine that ‘No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me” NOT protected, it is expressly EXCLUDED.
At first glance, the UDHR extends and espouses all the individual human rights that each person on the planet is deserving of. A perfect model for the ‘new’ Europe to base its new constitution on.
All the same rights the Constitution of the United States says were GRANTED by the Creator.
That is an important point. The only one who can revoke rights is the one who granted them in the first place. In America’s case, that would be God. Not the government.
By contrast, the UNDHR model reserves the right to revoke the rights it grants if they do not conform carefully undefined UN principles.
The same principle would be applicable in the new Europe, should the secularists win the constitutional argument.
The Bible says the government of antichrist is of global reach, but is headquartered out of the revived Roman Empire. Daniel says that revived Rome will be partly strong and partly weak and will be headed by ten kings.
John says that the antichrist will ‘make war against the saints and overcome them’ during the tribulation.
Revelation 13 says that the Tribulation Saints will be hunted down and exterminated for their faith in much the same manner as they were during the first centuries of Christianity under Roman rule.
The mechanism for all that is already in place, and has been for almost sixty years. Now take a look at the situation as it exists today.
Europe is almost ready to step into its appointed role. The Europeans have a vested interest in the Arab-Israeli peace process. They are one of the four members of the Quartet (together with the UN and Russia) who authored the current ‘road map’ effort.
And the Europeans have made no secret of the fact they are eager to step in to pick up the pieces, should the White House fail in its quest to impose peace.
The ten nations of Western Europe (Old Europe) may be part of a wider Europe, but the goal of new constitutional convention is to invest most of the real power in the original ten Western European Union states.
And that’s what the REAL fight is about. The battle over the inclusion of a mention of Christ in the EU’s new constitution is the headline, not the news.
This is about who will be Boss in the new Europe. and the Bible says it will be ‘Old’ Europe. And so do the ‘old’ Europeans who are the ones who decide who gets admitted as members of New Europe in the first place.
The Arab-Israeli crisis precisely conforms to Daniel’s description of the situation at about the time the prince of revived Rome steps onto the scene to confirm the covenant that kicks off the Tribulation Period. (Dan 9:24-27)
I can almost hear the trumpet.