Why do many Americans dislike the UN?

[Bill_Martin]

It is the most corrupt and useless organization in the world.

 

[GaryTaylor]

They are all too active about the wrong things (abortion, “gay rights”, “traditional values” in Hindu and Muslim countries), and impotent on others (protecting the unborn, and actually intervening in conflict zones in a constructive way).

We shouldn’t be surprised, though. Leo Tolstoy prophesied that they would be a disaster, all the way back in 1900 before they were founded, and he has been proved right.

Good points, do you believe in resist no evil as explained by Leo Tolstoy?

 

[RPRPsych]

Good points, do you believe in resist no evil as explained by Leo Tolstoy?

No way! I quoted him because of his prescience in this matter, but I’m pretty much diametrically opposed to his own, er, “version” of the Christian faith.

Tolstoy, indulging in private Biblical interpretation, failed to distinguish between personal vengeance (which is what Christ was talking about) and legitimate self-defence. Lacking the theological insights of the early Church fathers, he picked and chose what he wanted from Origen, Tertullian, etc. to support his stance. In order to do this, he also had to ignore large portions of the Old Testament, and his version of Christianity was a bloodless ethical system.

However, he did get it right on the United Nations and their ilk.

 

[lynnvinc]

I am just curious since it has done much to ensure peace in the world for the last 65 years. I can see that it does support objectionable causes and of course this should be resisted. Yet I hear on LifeSiteNews and similar sites that the UN shouldn’t exist at all, that “world government” is evil when the Church has no objection to it. I would like to understand the reasoning behind these arguments agianst it from an American (and indeed any other country) perspective. Thanks.

I don’t think Americans are against the UN, except for some off-the-wall conspiracy theorists. And the Church is very much in favor of it. Not that Americans accept what the Catholic Church has to say – in fact the Americans who hate the UN pretty much reject the Catholic Church, thinking it to be as bad as the UN mistakenly thinking both to be powerful and oppressive and threatening to American liberties.

If we want to massacre Native Americans and take over their lands, or kick some handicapped person in the side, etc etc, we certainly don’t want any Jiminy Cricket telling us it’s wrong…

Here’s what BXVI had to say about the UN in “Caritas in Veritate”:

“In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth.”

 

[ValPal]

I am just curious since it has done much to ensure peace in the world for the last 65 years.

I disagree. When it comes to dealing with nonviolent situations, they are helpful. When it comes to violent situations, they are less than useless. That have to completely rely on the willingness of others to do their dirty work, often the U.S.

 

[carn]

Here’s what BXVI had to say about the UN in “Caritas in Veritate”:

“In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth.”

You noticed he does not imply that there is something good about the UN with this statement?

He even seems to imply that the UN so far was teethless, which in no way contradicts the criticism offered in this thread. Most posters suggested that the UN lacks capability to achieve something positive. Calling for a reform of something can often even mean, that one think that something to be quite faulty and corrupt.

 

[lynnvinc]

You noticed he does not imply that there is something good about the UN with this statement?

He even seems to imply that the UN so far was teethless, which in no way contradicts the criticism offered in this thread. Most posters suggested that the UN lacks capability to achieve something positive. Calling for a reform of something can often even mean, that one think that something to be quite faulty and corrupt.

As I said, I think UN-hating and Catholic-hating go together and more or less for the same reasons. So the Catholics on this thread are saying it right – the UN needs more “teeth,” and have failed in many instances because they do not have more power.

My thinking, however, is that they are playing a useful role as an info gathering & dispensing org and as a Jiminy Cricket. By putting forth various conventions and rights (which are more ideals than UN-enforceable rights), various countries can and should use them as guidelines for improving human rights around the world.

One thing my husband pointed out last night when I was ranting on about how bad the US Congress was in refusing to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons, is that in America we already do quite a bit for disabled persons (we know of some people who do not appear disabled to us in the least – either mentally or physically – who receive disability benefits). Could we do more? Of course. But we may already being doing what the UN Convention suggests that nations do (I haven’t read it). Which is all the more puzzling why we would refuse to sign on to it and make a big fuss against it, making it appear that if we see a crippled person fallen down on the road, we want to make sure we have the right to kick him in the side, and we don’t want no UN thug telling us otherwise or making us feel guilty about it.

 

[JimG]

The UN might have been formed with the best of intentions, in the hope of international cooperation.

What we now have in practice is like a union of neighborhood watch groups wherein half or more of the members are criminal organilzations, street gangs, and violent bullies.

The UN employs a large bureaucracy, many of whom do nothing, treating their UN pay as party money. The UN is worse than useless when it comes to stopping genocide. A Canadian colonel in charge of a peacekeeping force was ready and willing to move in to confiscate guns and stop the killing in Rwanda, but was ordered by the UN to stand down and not interfere. The killing occurred. It was preventable. The UN made it happen by its cowardice. This is not an isolated incident. The UN makes less peace, not more.

It wastes money trying to impose agendas on unwilling nations. It is a worse than useless organization.

If it would at least move to eject nations which blatantly and frequently violate its charter, that at least might show some good will. How about starting with North Korea?

At least, watch the documentary–UN Me.

 

[SamH]

The UN might have been formed with the best of intentions, in the hope of international cooperation.

What we now have in practice is like a union of neighborhood watch groups wherein half or more of the members are criminal organilzations, street gangs, and violent bullies.

The UN employs a large bureaucracy, many of whom do nothing, treating their UN pay as party money. The UN is worse than useless when it comes to stopping genocide. A Canadian colonel in charge of a peacekeeping force was ready and willing to move in to confiscate guns and stop the killing in Rwanda, but was ordered by the UN to stand down and not interfere. The killing occurred. It was preventable. The UN made it happen by its cowardice. This is not an isolated incident. The UN makes less peace, not more.

It wastes money trying to impose agendas on unwilling nations. It is a worse than useless organization.

If it would at least move to eject nations which blatantly and frequently violate its charter, that at least might show some good will. How about starting with North Korea?

At least, watch the documentary–UN Me.

Don’t forget the UN rape clubs established in Haiti, Congo, Ivory Coast, and Cambodia.

 

[JimG]

Don’t forget the UN rape clubs established in Haiti, Congo, Ivory Coast, and Cambodia.

Those places loved getting UN money.

 

[qui_est_ce]

You noticed he does not imply that there is something good about the UN with this statement?

He even seems to imply that the UN so far was teethless, which in no way contradicts the criticism offered in this thread. Most posters suggested that the UN lacks capability to achieve something positive. Calling for a reform of something can often even mean, that one think that something to be quite faulty and corrupt.

 

[carn]

The UN might have been formed with the best of intentions, in the hope of international cooperation.

What we now have in practice is like a union of neighborhood watch groups wherein half or more of the members are criminal organilzations, street gangs, and violent bullies.

You seem to imply, that the bully members are a recent development. Stalins Soviet Russia was cofounder of the UN, considering that i would even claim that the moral quality of the average UN member improved from horrible to bad. So it is not a recent problem, it was there at founding.

 

[carn]

As I said, I think UN-hating and Catholic-hating go together and more or less for the same reasons.

Cannot see how one deduces that from the Pope statement. Furthermore in Germany the people fond of the UN tend to see the Church very negatively.

My thinking, however, is that they are playing a useful role as an info gathering & dispensing org and as a Jiminy Cricket.

That might be, but you have to weigh that vs the UN being to a conciderable extent a platform for propaganda warfare vs Israel and even to some extent funds people killing Jews for being Jews.

Which is all the more puzzling why we would refuse to sign on to it and make a big fuss against it,

Because words can have many meanings and by adding more treaties the state has to adhere too, there is more potential to use the meaning of some words vs what is good and right. If a law does not offer any advantage, but only adds complexity, one should not pass it, as with every law some damage, at least in higher legal costs, is acsociated.

As an example take the EU, which on paper has nice principles. But in practice every hater of life and friend of murderes has now another court to appeal to in trying to achieve unjust results.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I don’t think Americans are against the UN, except for some off-the-wall conspiracy theorists. And the Church is very much in favor of it. Not that Americans accept what the Catholic Church has to say – in fact the Americans who hate the UN pretty much reject the Catholic Church, thinking it to be as bad as the UN mistakenly thinking both to be powerful and oppressive and threatening to American liberties.

If we want to massacre Native Americans and take over their lands, or kick some handicapped person in the side, etc etc, we certainly don’t want any Jiminy Cricket telling us it’s wrong…

Here’s what BXVI had to say about the UN in “Caritas in Veritate”:

“In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth.”

There are reasons to be against the UN when it promotes things that are contrary to Catholic teaching. Disliking the UN has nothing to do with being a conspiracy theorist

 

[JimG]

You seem to imply, that the bully members are a recent development. Stalins Soviet Russia was cofounder of the UN, considering that i would even claim that the moral quality of the average UN member improved from horrible to bad. So it is not a recent problem, it was there at founding.

No doubt you are right. I didn’t pay a lot of attention to the U.N. in the past, but lately became aware of its more recent outrages.

 

[YoungIreland]

No organisation is perfect, or ever will be (bar the Church of course). It was wrong that Stalin was given a voice at the UN. But just because something is broken doesn’t mean it can’t be fixed. I still am confused as to why the UN shouldn’t exist and the US should. Extending the logic of the UN’s opponents, the US, in principle is an even worse offender against subsidiarity ( I am only using the US as an example,this can be applied to any strong nation). A few points:

1. The UN is full of social liberals. That’s a regrettable fact. But so too is the Obama administration (and they are probably even worse).
2. Given that the majority of US states could survive as independent nations, why don’t sovereignty advocates support Texan, Californian or Floridian independence, since these would be more in keeping with subsidiarity.
3. If there are no checks on an individual country’s power, we effectively have a survival-of-the-fittest scenario that would benefit neither the invader or the invaded (this applies to any country).
4. If it is wrong to have a peacekeeping force of tens of thousands of volunteers, it must be even worse to have a supernational army with a strength of millions of soldiers who may have been drafted (I know there has been no draft in the US since Vietnam, so this is merely hypothetical, indeed Russia is much worse in this regard) without their consent.

 

[JimG]

What good is a peacekeeping force which is not allowed to keep the peace?
What good is a mulitnational organization in which evil nations outnumber the good?
What good is a multinational organization which pays employees to drink beer and lay on the beach?
What good is an organization which refuses to take sides against terrorism, and indeed cannot even agree on what terrorism is, since it might offend one of their member states?
What good is an organization which places human righs violators in charge of the commission on human rights?
Does U.N. money get spent for good purposes, or for bad?

 

[maryjk]

No organisation is perfect, or ever will be (bar the Church of course). It was wrong that Stalin was given a voice at the UN. But just because something is broken doesn’t mean it can’t be fixed. I still am confused as to why the UN shouldn’t exist and the US should. Extending the logic of the UN’s opponents, the US, in principle is an even worse offender against subsidiarity ( I am only using the US as an example,this can be applied to any strong nation).

Um, you know that the US is a nation and the UN is an organization, right?

 

[YoungIreland]

Um, you know that the US is a nation and the UN is an organization, right?

I do, however as the US is a federal entity, and most UN opponents fear a world government, my example is reasonably fair.

 

[JimG]

I do, however as the US is a federal entity, and most UN opponents fear a world government, my example is reasonably fair.

I don’t particularly fear a world government, certainly not from the U.N., which is incapable of ruling itself let alone anyone else. What is of more concern is that the U.N. tries to pass treaties binding on member nations, and treaties, once ratified, do become part of national law. I don’t trust the U.N. bureaucracy to draft treaties.