T
- Status
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
I’ll go by sentence here.
- I disagree, although you could say it has done slightly more than nothing.
- Agreed.
- I don’t think a “world government” is a good idea, unless of course something like the UN is what is meant by a “world government”. That’s not what I think of when I think of government. The Church does support subsidiarity and a balance of powers, so I think she might be skeptical of anything more “government-like” than a UN that actually does what it was meant to do.
- I’m against the UN not because I don’t like the idea of something like the UN, but because it is corrupt and ineffective. The Church has shown support for something like the UN that actually does stuff besides distribute contraceptives to third world countries; meaning a UN that is moral.
L
liturgyluver
Guest
The question wasn’t why Catholics may dislike the UN but specifically about Americans. If you claim the reason so many Americans dislike the UN is because of alleged promotion of abortion then that is very hypocritical given that the US has one of the highest abortion rates in the western world, though thankfully it now seems to be falling.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
It’s likely because the “morning after pill” and other abortifacients are more common and not considered abortions.
N
Nimzovik
Guest
One can simply not dismiss such allegations against the UN by labeling them as “far Right.” I note the entire thread has been for the vast majority, highly critical of the UN. Such voice must be heard.
L
liturgyluver
Guest
I always think it is useful to see what the Pope has to say and it might be useful to read about the Pope’s esteem for the UN:
un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=26377&Cr=pope&Cr1
Pope Benedict XVI today stressed the United Nations’ major role in seeking a better world as he highlighted, during an address to the General Assembly, the need to protect human rights, ensure development, security and reduce local and global inequalities.
“The promotion of human rights remains the most effective strategy for eliminating inequalities between countries and social groups, and for increasing security,” he told the 192-member body in a half-hour speech that was greeted with a standing ovation.
Pope Benedict called the UN the embodiment of aspirations for a “greater degree of international ordering” in response to the needs of the human family.
“This is all the more necessary at a time when we experience the obvious paradox of a multilateral consensus that continues to be in crisis because it is still subordinated to the decisions of a few, whereas the world’s problems call for interventions in the form of collective action by the international community,” he said.
Speaking immediately before the Pontiff, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted common ground between the Catholic Church and the UN. “In so many ways, our mission unites us with yours,” he said, citing Benedict’s call to fight poverty, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the need to protect the weak, and the critical importance of water resources and climate change.
Pope Benedict called for international leaders to act jointly and in good faith on issues of security, development, reduction of inequalities, protection of the environment and resources, global warming, and on promoting solidarity with the planet’s weakest regions.
“I am thinking especially of those countries in Africa and other parts of the world which remain on the margins of authentic integral development, and are therefore at risk of experiencing only the negative effects of globalization,” he said.
He praised the recent explicit inclusion of the responsibility to protect people from crimes against humanity such as genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing, adopted by a UN world summit in 2005, although he noted that this was implicitly included at the UN’s founding in 1946.
“If States are unable to guarantee such protection, the international community must intervene with juridical means provided by the United Nations Charter and in other international instruments,” he said.
But he emphasized that human rights must include the right to religious freedom. “The activity of the United Nations in recent years has ensured that public debate gives space to viewpoints inspired by a religious vision in all its dimensions, including ritual, worship, education, dissemination of information and the freedom to profess and choose religion,” he said.
“My presence at this Assembly is a sign of esteem for the United Nations, and it is intended to express the hope that the Organization will increasingly serve as a sign of unity between States and an instrument of service to the entire human family.
“It also demonstrates the willingness of the Catholic Church to offer her proper contribution to building international relations in a way that allows every person and every people to feel they can make a difference.”
un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=26377&Cr=pope&Cr1
Pope Benedict XVI today stressed the United Nations’ major role in seeking a better world as he highlighted, during an address to the General Assembly, the need to protect human rights, ensure development, security and reduce local and global inequalities.
“The promotion of human rights remains the most effective strategy for eliminating inequalities between countries and social groups, and for increasing security,” he told the 192-member body in a half-hour speech that was greeted with a standing ovation.
Pope Benedict called the UN the embodiment of aspirations for a “greater degree of international ordering” in response to the needs of the human family.
“This is all the more necessary at a time when we experience the obvious paradox of a multilateral consensus that continues to be in crisis because it is still subordinated to the decisions of a few, whereas the world’s problems call for interventions in the form of collective action by the international community,” he said.
Speaking immediately before the Pontiff, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted common ground between the Catholic Church and the UN. “In so many ways, our mission unites us with yours,” he said, citing Benedict’s call to fight poverty, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the need to protect the weak, and the critical importance of water resources and climate change.
Pope Benedict called for international leaders to act jointly and in good faith on issues of security, development, reduction of inequalities, protection of the environment and resources, global warming, and on promoting solidarity with the planet’s weakest regions.
“I am thinking especially of those countries in Africa and other parts of the world which remain on the margins of authentic integral development, and are therefore at risk of experiencing only the negative effects of globalization,” he said.
He praised the recent explicit inclusion of the responsibility to protect people from crimes against humanity such as genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing, adopted by a UN world summit in 2005, although he noted that this was implicitly included at the UN’s founding in 1946.
“If States are unable to guarantee such protection, the international community must intervene with juridical means provided by the United Nations Charter and in other international instruments,” he said.
But he emphasized that human rights must include the right to religious freedom. “The activity of the United Nations in recent years has ensured that public debate gives space to viewpoints inspired by a religious vision in all its dimensions, including ritual, worship, education, dissemination of information and the freedom to profess and choose religion,” he said.
“My presence at this Assembly is a sign of esteem for the United Nations, and it is intended to express the hope that the Organization will increasingly serve as a sign of unity between States and an instrument of service to the entire human family.
“It also demonstrates the willingness of the Catholic Church to offer her proper contribution to building international relations in a way that allows every person and every people to feel they can make a difference.”
S
St_Francis
Guest
In addition, children over 10 would have the right to associate with whom they please, so parents would be unable to keep them away from pedophiles or drug dealers/gang members.
I mean, a world organization micromanaging family relationships? What a humongous violation of subsidiarity!
S
St_Francis
Guest
Yes, the Pope praised what he could and did not castigate the UN for its support of abortion, etc, and alluded to those problems and the proper role of the Church in tye last two statements.
It’s kind of like when I tell my best friend that she looks very happy in her brand new dress, which she loves and I… don’t
Very diplomatic of the Pope.
S
Semper_Zelare
Guest
- The U.N. contradicts the Catholic teaching of subsidiarity: power should always be concentrated at the lowest levels possible: the family, the community, the local government, the state government, then the national government. The U.N. is a supra-national government, and its supra-national status applies not only to Europe (like the EU), but to almost every nation in the world.
- The U.N. issues laws which the Catholic Church often disagrees with (many have been mentioned above). The U.N. is beholden to liberal elitists who believe in abortion, birth control, population control, gun control, economic regulations and control. The U.N. is all about control, and it’s not a representative body. The U.N. is not beholden to voters (or if it is, it is further from voters than any other government I can think of).
- The U.N. doesn’t like national sovereignty. When Hungary amended their constitution to: recognize God, establish the personhood of all children in the womb, and establish marriage as between one man and one woman, Hungary was criticized by the E.U. and the U.N.
J
JerryZ
Guest
Not to mention that it has become the epitome of Ali Baba and the 40 thieves Cave, except there so many more than 40 now.
It was supposed to foster peace, let me know since it’s foundation if there has been single year without a war somewhere!
It’s a joint of corruption and deceit. Not only the Americans dislike it many other nationalities too.
It was supposed to foster peace, let me know since it’s foundation if there has been single year without a war somewhere!
It’s a joint of corruption and deceit. Not only the Americans dislike it many other nationalities too.
L
lerapt78
Guest
In a nutshell, it compromises the right of nations to self-govern. Participation may come with benefits, but those benefits usually have strings attached.
It also demands that moral, legal, and ethical precepts be decided by popular consensus and then enforced upon the rest of the world, often barring consideration of surrounding cultures, circumstances, and contingencies.
It is egalitarian.
It also demands that moral, legal, and ethical precepts be decided by popular consensus and then enforced upon the rest of the world, often barring consideration of surrounding cultures, circumstances, and contingencies.
It is egalitarian.
J
JimG
Guest
“He [the Pope] praised the recent explicit inclusion of the responsibility to protect people from crimes against humanity such as genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing, adopted by a UN world summit in 2005, although he noted that this was implicitly included at the UN’s founding in 1946.”
Sadly, the U.N. has been not only ineffective in protecting against genocide and ethnic cleansing, but obstinately, obdurately, and deliberately ineffective.
Sadly, the U.N. has been not only ineffective in protecting against genocide and ethnic cleansing, but obstinately, obdurately, and deliberately ineffective.
Y
YoungIreland
Guest
OK, I an starting to understand some of the objections. However I have a couple of points:
- If the UN’s policies were entirely consistent with Church teaching, would there still be an objection to the UN in principle?
- With China set to eclipse the US any decade now, the UN may act as a brake to China’s power, protect US interests and insure against a spread in Communism. Agree?
- I disagree that subsidiarity is much of an issue. The same argument can be used against the existence of the US because it takes power away from individual states.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
OK, I an starting to understand some of the objections. However I have a couple of points:
Many people in the United States would still object because: a) Church teaching is not their priority-the majority of citizens are not Catholic. b) the issue of supranational organizatons versus democracy would still be a concern (and this would be the case for many Catholics as well as non-Catholics).
- “If the UN’s policies were entirely consistent with Church teaching, would there still be an objection to the UN in principle?”
I’m not sure that the purpose of the U.N. is to protect U.S. interests or to act as a brake on China or insure against the spread of Communism. The WTO seems to be a supranational organization more oriented towards the opening of markets. and The World Bank and its policies are also influential in encouraging certain political/economic trajectories.
- “With China set to eclipse the US any decade now, the UN may act as a brake to China’s power, protect US interests and insure against a spread in Communism. Agree?”
Veto power in the security council does give the U.S. a disproportionate voice relative to some countries as does the economic/military power of the U.S.
Quite the double entendre in that last sentence.
- “I disagree that subsidiarity is much of an issue. The same argument can be used against the existence of the US because it takes power away from individual states.”
I think that the subsidiarity arguments link up with issues of voice and democracy. The term subsidiarity is seen perhaps more frequently in Catholic circles while the terms voice and democracy may be more strongly associated with social scientists/political theorists.
A
Adonia
Guest
- Yes. We are more than capable of conducting our own affairs whether they be domestic or dealing with other countries. Foreign affairs can be adequately conducted on a one to one basis. We don’t need this behemouth of an organization as an intermediary.
- No. the UN has no military power to back up it’s pronouncements. We already have alliances with many Pacific rim nations. We can decide how to react to any Chinese encroachments. Plus, China has veto power in the UN, which they use quite effectively against our interests.
- You are correct. America is supposed to be made up of 50 soverign states, but the idea of Federalism as espoused by the Founding Fathers is dead. So much power has indeed been illegally taken from the individual states.
Let me assure you it is, because many Americans do not want to see what happened to us as regards federalism happen to us again - this time on the world stage by foreigners.
C
carn
Guest
Stalin agreed joining the UN. The UN agrees to and pays for killing children by promoting reproductive rights. And the UN effictively funds murderous savages, who attack and try to kill Jews for being Jews.
Whether the good outweighs the bad and therefore as some sort of compromise support for the UN is ok or whether the UN might evolve into something more positive or whether dissolving it will be even worse, is a matter of personal opinion, in which the Church officials certainly can have other opinions (though they criticize whenever possible the promotion of reproductive rights).
As a german i got too much indoctrination upon that Jew killing issue, therefore i am unable to compromise there and are against German membership or funding for any organization or state or whatever that diverts the funds into hands of people killing Jews for being Jews.
C
carn
Guest
The UN has mostly succumbed to socialistic ideals, so not much help vs Communism. And thats not something new, why should Stalin join a club, if its threatining to Communism?
C
carn
Guest
To elaborate while this is not only a formal stain on an otherwise clean UN west:
If a community would come together and agree to form a poltical gremium aimed at preventing theft, robbery and murder in the community and the second most notorious serial killer and thug leader agrees, after having slaughtered the most notorious killer in a dreadful carnage, to join the gremium, but afterwards just continues with his criminal activity, would not this be strong evidence that:
-the criminal was unrepentive and planned to continue his criminal activity even while joining the gremium
-and therefore, the criminal - competent in the fields of committing crimes and avoinding punishment - estimated that the gremium would be ineffective?
And if the thugs a gremium is aimed at, consider the gremium to be no impedence for them, doesnt this alone does not sufficiently show, that the gremium is a bad idea to solve the problem of thugs?
B
Bill_7154
Guest
I"m against the UN because a man I respect greatly told me of a terrible story about them. The following links reference this man, not the story he told me, but I would never doubt this man, the best 3 weeks of my life were spent with John Jordan:
firecritic.com/2009/12/05/john-jordan-head-of-a-team-of-americans-helping-sarajevos-firemen/
fireemsblogs.com/tag/john-jordan/
tigerschmittendorf.com/2009/12/john-jordan-bosnia/
firelawblog.com/tag/john-jordan/
firelawblog.com/tag/john-jordan/
God Bless,
Bill
R
RPRPsych
Guest
First of all, “has done much to ensure peace” is a very, very optimistic statement.
Secondly, it’s not just the Americans. Many right-thinking people all around the world have been skeptical of its achievements and even its worth.
Fundamentally, this resolves itself to a question of ideology and capability.
The UN’s ideology has pretty much blindly followed the political left wing.
Their “democratic” set-up means that numbers, and not truth or justice, count.
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.
- Status