The Convention on the Rights of the Child - 1/2

In a recent program I suggested we look at "The Convention on the Rights of the Child" and I've taken advantage of an excellent booklet by Robert Karolis called, "The Making of a Deception".

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is popularly promoted as a 'treaty for the protection of children'.

This is a cynical misrepresentation of the facts. The Convention is actually designed to undermine and destroy all legitimate rights children have to the protection of parents and adults.

'Childhood', which provides the conceptual basis for this protection, will be replaced by a concept of 'equality' between parents/adults and children.

Australia signed the Convention on August 22, 1990, and is now preparing to ratify and use it as a basis for Australian law.

The process of ratification will once again signal a commitment by Australian federal and state politicians to implement and impose foreign laws upon Australians.

The Australian Constitution does not provide them with this authority. The function of Australian parliaments is to determine Australian laws in strict accordance with the will of the Australian people. It's not their function to be used by political parties for the purpose of adopting foreign laws determined by a non-elected political consortium. This is high treason!

Treason plus the Convention on the Rights of the Child equals the making of one of the most vile and despicable deceptions ever perpetrated on humankind.

'Deception', according to the Oxford Universal Dictionary, is the action of causing to believe what is false.

As it is impossible to believe both the falsehood and truth, those who accept the 'protection' lie, may now be thinking: How preposterous for somebody to suggest that childhood could be destroyed. No-one would want to do anything like that. It just couldn't happen. Yet, in reality, it is already happening. Under the banner of children's liberation its been happening for at least twenty years.

The last twenty years have seen dramatic changes take place in adult perception of childhood as well as adult attitudes toward children and vice versa. The sharp line that marked the division between the concept of adulthood and childhood has become blurred, to say the least, by the notion of equality.

"Raising children has always been based on the tradition of the autocratic system, the superiority of the parent over the child," comments Professor Maurice Balson of Monash University in the Daily Mirror, (23/8/89). The Mirror goes on to say, "But in the 1970s things changed and that system gave way to a more democratic one. New values emerged, including the notion of equality..."

Today parents pander to their children; playing child games with them, talking and relating to them as equals; dressing them as if they are seductive little adults. Children in turn fail to comprehend the concept of respect. Instead, it seems they look upon their parents and adults as big children.

The blurring of the demarcation line between adulthood and childhood is seen as many different things, or the product of many different causes: children growing up faster; being better educated; a changing world; more enlightened parents etc., but rarely is it seen for what it really is: a symptom of the destruction of childhood.

This is no chance evolution. It's a conspiracy accomplished by deliberate social engineering. Such is the power of deception. Wake up, Christian!

Like the sleight of hand of the conjurer who leads us to think he holds an orange in his right hand when he really holds it in his left, we're being led to believe one thing is happening whilst, in reality, something quite different is being planned.

The destruction of childhood is happening right in front of our eyes. We're witnessing it, but because it's being induced within a web of deception, we're failing to relate what we're witnessing to the deliberate destruction of childhood. It is axiomatic that deceived people do not know they're being deceived. The deceptive strategy being employed in the destruction of childhood is calculated to ensure that parents will accept, if not openly welcome and embrace the resultant degeneration of their children.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is a significant part of this strategy. The purpose of this study is to look closely at the deceptive nature of the Convention and expose its sinister purpose and intent.

We'll begin by investigating behind the scenes of the Convention, in order to see how this gigantic hoax has been put together. We'll look at humanism, the religious foundations upon which the United Nations and its concept of human rights are structured. We'll look at the humanist movements, children's rights/liberation and see how they've underpinned the push for the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the destruction of childhood. Then, to illustrate the sinister intentions behind the document, we'll focus on Article 34 to discover that its real purpose is, contrary to all appearances, to legitimize and encourage child pornography, child prostitution, and incest.

The prophet Paul told us that in the last days, or after the Seven Seals are revealed, people will love only themselves and money; be proud and boastful, sneering at God; disobedient and ungrateful to their parents. Unholy, without natural affection, constant liars, immoral, feral, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God (II Timothy 3:1-4).

The hate-filled, Christ-rejecting people who organized the United Nations have delivered this prophecy on a platter to our spineless politicians who've brought it to fulfillment.

Have you ever wondered about the underlying belief system of the United Nations? What ideology, or religious persuasion, motivated it to conceive the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", and drives it continually to enforce its principles upon all peoples and nations of the world?

Chances are you haven't. Whether we realize it or not, everything of significance we think and do is predicated upon and determined by, our basic origin beliefs. We're all continually striving to live in accord with that which we believe to be our origins, i.e., where we came from, and what we are.

Moslems have their basic beliefs, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus theirs. Christians understand their origins to be the result of purposeful creation by God.

But what of the United Nations? Whose architects consider us human cattle?

The United Nations' Office of Public Information states in its 1978 edition of "The United Nations and Human Rights" that the roots of its concern with human rights and fundamental freedoms... may be traced to the humanist traditions of the Renaissance. This is quite a candid admission from an organization that makes every effort to appear secular, without any religious bias. For there is no doubt that humanism is a religion in every sense of the word.

So what sort of religion is it? What does it teach, and how prevalent is it?

Humanism is the Clayton's religion; the religion you have when you say you have no religion. Put another way, it's the religion you have that you don't know you have. It's simply a belief about living in accordance with one's feelings and emotions, unfettered by considerations of the mind. Therefore it rejects all teachings that endeavor to build concepts and spiritual ideals upon moral foundations.

Christianity is one such teaching. And, because of its past prominence in the Western world, has been anathema to the growth and development of humanism for nearly 2,000 years.

Christianity and humanism are conflicting ideological forces. Therefore they cannot co-exist in harmony. As a society endeavors to live in accord with its basic beliefs, it nurtures a culture that both reflects and protects those beliefs.

Christianity is no exception. Its culture has been enshrined for generations in tradition and law - much of which is still held in high regard today - a situation that inhibits the overt growth and dominance of humanism.

For this reason, humanism is romantically represented in the revolutionary mold; as the oppressed, seeking free expression and liberation from religions, i.e., Christian constraints. In this sense, humanism is as much a political movement directed towards the destruction of our Christian culture with its tradition and law as it is a religious ideology encouraging the worship of feelings and emotions. Bear this in mind as we consider what the humanists themselves have to say.

The following extracts are from what's known as 'The II Humanist Manifesto' - a document that first appeared in the 'Humanist' 1973, (Sept/Oct. New York). I Humanist Manifesto was publicly released in 1933.

As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism [that is, belief in God], especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and take care of persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith.

Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival.

In all fairness, humanists, like everybody else, have, and should have the free-will to believe or disbelieve whatever they choose. That's their business. But it becomes our business when they work deceptively to impose those beliefs on us and our children. Remember, it's upon these arguments that the traditions of the U N are founded - arguments that reject the existence of God.

God's existence, according to humanists, hasn't been proven. How then do these reasonable minds account for human existence?

Promises of eternal Life, or fear of damnation, are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the 'ghost in the machine' and the separable soul. Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces.

To humanists we're the product of an unknown number of mutations - chance evolution. Consequently, we exist by accident and lack any separable soul that will continue beyond the death of our bodies.

"As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context."

There we have it. According to humanist reason we're a biological organism - an animal. No more. No less. This is not an unreasonable assumption for anyone who accepts evolution theory as fact. But that also means we are not human because its those non-animal spiritual qualities of consciousness that make us human.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

It will be realized that the term 'humanism', though deliberately misleading in its suggestion of concern for humanity, was appropriately selected. The 'ism' on the end means 'like human' but not 'human'.

I don't wish to enter the evolution v creation debate, but it must be said that for a body of thought to reject the existence of God because mere mortal scientists cannot prove he exists, is naive to say the least; particularly when that body of thought predicates its belief system on a theory that cannot be proven by those whose judgment they value so highly. Humanists reject the existence of God because they can't prove He exists, yet they teach faith in a theory that has no basis in scientific fact. What hypocrisy!

Darwin, in his twilight days, admitted that there was no evidence to support the theory that any one species has evolved into another. In October, 1980 at the Chicago Conference, 160 of the world's leading scientists and evolutionists were forced to admit that fossil evidence did not support Darwinian evolution.

But humanists want to deny the existence of God and encourage unrestrained expression of animal feelings and emotions. In this they need an origin belief to support their teachings. Evolution theory appears tailor-made to serve that purpose.

It is reasonable to expect that those who promote a religion based on the belief that humans are really no more than animals, would seek to eliminate from each of us, the spiritual and intellectual qualities that give us the edge over our bestial counterparts, and instead, encourage us to live and behave like mindless animals.

In so much that Christianity provides a reason and purpose for physical and emotional constraint - a buffer, as it were, between moral decency and unfettered animal behavior, or worse, unbridled intellectualized depravity - it should come as no surprise that humanism is diametrically opposed to Christian morality and ethics.

To quote from II Humanist Manifesto: "We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stem from human need and interest."

In other words, "If it feels good, do it."

In practical terms they're saying: there's no God to determine what's morally right to do in any particular situation; and because of this there are no absolute truths. Thus be guided by your animal needs and interests, i.e., your feelings and emotions, (remember we are not human); if it feels good, do it; if it seems right to you, it's all right for you.

To normal, healthy minds the implications of this form of reverse morality may not be immediately apparent. Say, for example, a man wanted to have sex with a two year old girl, it would be his humanist right to do so. If the child APPROVED, that's fine. If she did not approve, humanism will resolve the dilemma by teaching the child to like it.

Note for example that the Federation of Parents & Citizens Associations of N.S.W. has a 'health' policy requiring that children as young as two be given sex instruction.

Consider another example of humanist morality. An eighteen year-old boy, stressed by the pressure of exams, is contemplating suicide. According to humanist teachings he would be morally right, and should have the right, to terminate his life if he so chose.

According to the II Humanist Manifesto, "To enhance freedom and dignity, the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties ... which includes the right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide."

So much for the humanist traditions of the United Nations and the Convention on the Rights of the child.

Humanism is not a theoretical concept invented by an international organization just to keep parents and Christians on their toes. Its presence is disturbingly real in every facet of Australian society. In most, its influence reigns supreme.

Nowhere is this more visibly evident than in the schools - those so-called bastions of enlightenment that are supposed to reflect the beliefs, cultural values and ideals of our society.

Before the first weeks of school are up, the little five and six year olds will have been systematically weaned on pictures of dinosaurs and evolution theory. Almost before they hold a pencil, they're put through values clarification processes to be taught it's O.K. to reject whatever traditional moral values their parents are teaching them.

From then until the time they leave school, they'll have been confronted with situation ethics, (For a Christian this sounds like blasphemy, but the Talmud has a teaching called "hora'ath she' ah," which means that a special dispensation can be given to meet the requirement of the moment. It is from this teaching the Christians were polluted in the 1960's with the theology known as "situation ethics."), death education, suicide education, drug education, assertiveness training, pornography, sex instruction on how to masturbate, fornicate, and engage in homosexual acts, and even in some schools, incest and bestiality; witchcraft, protective behaviors programs, alternative family lifestyles, abortion, AIDS education and so on.

The relevance of these humanist teachings are affirmed in the child's mind by the world outside school. They don't have the absolute of God's Word.

At home parents put their children in front of the television to experience a humanist world of sex, violence, corruption, drugs, perversion, prostitution, materialism, self-indulgence, fantasy... and, all the while, the ads blare out 'share the feeling, get that feeling, live for the feeling'- a theme persistent throughout modern music, movies, magazines, novels etc. Everywhere we're being enticed to feel. Not think, just feel.

Christians don't have a television set in the house.

On the streets, children are greeted by glorified images of naked women posing brazenly - pornographically - on newsagents' posters, enticing passers-by to 'share that feeling'.

They go to the movies to see their heroes live 'free-spirited' lives of unrestrained passion to 'share that feeling'. And to rock concerts to listen to rock music and 'get that feeling'. They go to the beach to bare their bodies and look at the bodies of others, nude or near nude - to 'live for that feeling and get that feeling'. Or to the discos to dance and 'get that feeling, express that feeling'. To amusement parks with their big slippery dips and roller-coasters to 'live that feeling, get that feeling'. To sports events to 'share that feeling'.

In today's modern, hedonistic society, the emphasis is on the pursuit of personal pleasure - fun; the fulfillment of feelings and emotions. This is what we and our society are teaching our children.

Ask any child today what they thought of this, or that, and their answer will be in crass terms of fun or boredom.

Adults too, now live for entertainment, pleasure - expression of their feelings and emotions even though most of the time it is vicariously in front of the television or video, with the radio, a magazine or novel. And we encourage these same selfish, physical, pursuits in our children from the earliest possible ages.

In humanist terms we live for 'the here and now'. After all, evolution decrees "here today, gone tomorrow." So why restrain our feelings? Deny ourselves pleasure? Suppress our emotions? Live and die without having experienced all the wild imaginings of our minds - most of which, it must be said, are artificially inspired by the media and entertainment industries?

These are just some of the physical manifestations of humanism and whether we like to admit it or not, humanism has taken over our culture. Yes. we can still appreciate the virtues of God's Commandments - in theory - as we witness our traditional moral order crumbling around us. Some still manage a soft spot in their hearts for Jesus Christ the Son of God. Old habits and beliefs die hard. But life after death does seem so far away from the 'here and now'.

Australians, young and old, are chasing humanist rainbows, and embracing the New Age with open arms, Oblivious of the religion within that embrace, and its implications.

But the promoters of humanism know that once people accept a basic belief, they're bound to conform to the logic of that belief, sooner or later, or suffer the confusion of having to reject it altogether.

Next week, we'll examine the role that the two political forces of humanism - the twin movements of children's rights and liberation, have played in furthering the goals of humanism and paving the way for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Their purpose, as we shall see, is simply to affirm the logical consequences of humanist belief.radio055.htm

.../Back to Index