” You have your rights by virtue of being a human being, and not by anything else—not ethnicity, not religion, not race, not tribe, not sexual orientation.
I deplore, for instance, the persecution of Baha’is in Iran and the persecution of Ahamdis in Pakistan. Being a Baha’i or being an Ahmadi no doubt constitutes the identity of these people who are being persecuted. Nonetheless, there is no such thing as Ahmadi rights or Baha’i rights: there are only human rights. And our defense of them comes precisely at the level of principle in the inalienable right to freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression.
Were we to construct such a thing as Ahmadi rights or Baha’i rights or “gay” rights, we would be eviscerating the foundations for those very human rights, which have to be universal by definition in order to exist. If one has rights as a Baha’i, what happens to those rights if one converts to, say Christianity? Does one then lose one’s Baha’i rights and obtain new Christian rights? What happens to one’s “gay” rights if one goes straight?
One does not possess or attain rights in this way. They are inalienable because one possesses them by virtue of one’s human nature—not due to any other specificity regarding race, class, gender or religion. Either they exist at that level, or they do not exist at all. If someone tries to appropriate human rights for something that applies to less than everyone, then you may be sure that they are undermining very notion of human rights. If there are abuses, and this includes abuses against homosexuals, then they should be opposed from the perspective of human rights, not manufactured rights that obtain to just a specific group.
If the United States wishes to promote democratic principles and constitutional rule in other countries, but insists on inserting a manufactured right such as “gay” rights as integral to that program, it will be rejected overall by religious people and by those who, through the examination of moral philosophy, have arrived at the existence of human rights from natural law. If we wish not only to make ourselves irrelevant, but an object of derision in the Muslim and other parts of world, all we have to do is openly promote the rationalization of homosexual behavior, which is explicitly taught against as inherently immoral by Islam and, in fact, by every minority religion in those Muslim-majority countries, including Christianity and Judaism.
If we wish to make this part of American public diplomacy, as we have been doing, we can surrender the idea that the United States is promoting democracy in those countries because they are already responding, “If this is democracy, we don’t want it, thank you; we would rather keep our faith and morals.” This approach not only undermines the foundation of human rights abroad but here, as well.
But, of course, democracy is not the real goal; the goal is the universalization of the rationalization for sodomy. This is now one of the depraved purposes of US foreign policy. The light from the City on the Hill is casting a very dark shadow.
So I scanned the piece from which the excerpt comes in this post. All well and good.
I’m more interested in your take Lila.
Since I think we have differing ideas in regard religion I’m wondering what your focus is in posting this.
There’s a bit of the fear of “making the world safe for sodomy” in the writer’s words. All things considered are we really in the mess we are in due to “sodomy”?
Perhaps figuratively when one considers the acts of some banks, governments, and such in their dealings with the greater population?
I have also noticed a new? concentration on the subject of abortion. Now THERE is a subject that has really done damage ATMO. Hard to objectively quantify it which, along with the political, emotional, and social complications, keep it such a hot button topic.
Hi Keith
The point in posting this is because in India and Russia, the Western media is on a huge campaign to demonize the culture there because people are traditionalists.
In India, there is an anti-sodomy law under which no one has ever been prosecuted. Ever. It was repealed after massive lobbying by the Western NGOs and the media that works for them in India.
The Supreme Court recently reversed it, stating that any changes of it should come from the legislature, which is exactly right.
The gay lobby went on a huge media campaign to paint this as persecution of gays.
It’s not. No one has every prosecuted one gay person under it.
So why the aggressive proselytizing? It will only provoke reaction which will then lead to persecution.
That pro-gay campaign is part and parcel of the humanitarian interventionist agenda, which justifies intervention in the internal matters of a country on the basis that “gay rights” are being violated.
But rights are human rights.
We don’t codify anyone’s right to, for example, premarital sex. Why do we codify any other rights?
I see it is as essentially a law intended to create another protected class in the huge number of protected classes (backward, SC, ST, Dalit) which is already a problem in the country.
Regarding abortion.
In the first place, when I see the nastiness of feminists and the way they constantly talk only about their reproductive/sexual rights, I get turned off in the extreme.
I want to right the balance. Reproductive rights tells only one side of the story. The baby also has a right to LIVE. And the husband, the parents, also have ownership in the genetic material, don’t they?
So I began to see a connection between the lies about this and the lies about the “rape crisis” and I began to see that the agenda is not about the liberty of homosexuals or women. It’s about fostering a culture that hates children, doesn’t want them, and lives only for sex and money. Why?
Because such a society will be addictive, parasitical, corrupt, violent, and easy to subvert even further.
Which is what we have,
@Keith
I no longer buy that theory that focusing only on the financial stuff and the wars helps more than adding socio-cultural analysis…because the left NEVER stops force-feeding us soci-cultural analysis, via co-opted language.
The economics-only approach isn’t enough, because it doesn’t address the REASON why people still want the government there, giving them what they want.
People will continue to see the government as good, because they don’t get the goal of the NWO, which is population control. Population control requires sterilization, abortion, promotion of gay sexuality (which is a health risk, whatever your position on it is on other grounds), and destruction of the family unit.
It’s all connected together.
War and money-printing are only the means to the end – the tend is a techno-plantation that is totally controlled. The people will be drugged (through over-the-counter drugs and the medico-statist groups OR through taboo street drugs, sold by the anti-statist criminals, promoted by some libertarian groups).
The people will be brainwashed with porn, which is drugs in another form.
Welfare and dependency are drugs in a third form.
I see all that is unfolding as a war against child-bearing.
I don’t believe a community of individualist males will look after children in the same ways as mothers do.
So, by default, the state or the street will look after children (which it already does). The result will be the ghetto on a world-wide scale and the growth of the state that tends it.