18
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 80:
Line 80: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform? (view source)
Revision as of 22:04, June 29, 2007
, 22:04, June 29, 2007→Comment
To all of you patriotic conservative Christian Americans, I have a very important point to make, so pay very close attention. If, as you allege, God created man in his image, this includes all men (and women, who we all know were created from and are lesser than men). Despite a particular culture's refusal to accept our one true God, and his son as our Saviour, he is no less the God of all. Should not your allegiance be to your one true God, and not to some arbitrary assimilation of people? God supersedes your constitution, and the United Nations seeks to unite all that are God's people. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 01:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
To all of you patriotic conservative Christian Americans, I have a very important point to make, so pay very close attention. If, as you allege, God created man in his image, this includes all men (and women, who we all know were created from and are lesser than men). Despite a particular culture's refusal to accept our one true God, and his son as our Saviour, he is no less the God of all. Should not your allegiance be to your one true God, and not to some arbitrary assimilation of people? God supersedes your constitution, and the United Nations seeks to unite all that are God's people. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 01:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I disagree. According to the UN charter the purpose of the UN is:
"to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime
has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human
person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from
treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed
force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement
of all peoples..."[http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/]
Nowhere in this is any mention made of God, or any "gods of this world", including but not limited to allah, shivna, jupiter, buddha, etc. In any case, from the same argument, what of those who aren't God's people? To be God's people necesitates actually following the principles of God (see 1 Cor 11:1, Eph 5), which drastically cuts the number of people who make claims to said status that may actually be included in said group (see Matt 7:21-23).
But anyone who claims to converse with the Almighty for the sake of political and worldly power is highly suspect.
More onto topic. To wear the badge or symbol of a group, individual, or nation is to show allegiance to said party. To wear the badge or symbol of a foreign power (e.g. anyone other than the United States of America) is to show allegiance to said foreign power and thus don its uniform also. Soldiers cannot serve two masters as this is treason. Either they serve the UN or they serve the USA. They are not the same. Nor can one subordinate one duty to another.
In the matter of oaths and treaties. If an attempt is made by a president to conclude a treaty which subordinates the US constitution as a whole to a higher level of government such as is being hammered out in the form of a North American Union (Security and Prosperity Partnershiphttp [http://www.spp.gov/]) he would be guilty of blatent and open TREASON. If a treaty is treasonous then it's void. The order oaths are taken in are important. The constitional oath is first and the presidential oath comes later. If the president orders the military to violate the constition then the oath to the president is void as he is guilty of treason.
Too few politicians are held to their oaths of office anymore and the whole procedure has turned into basically a mere formality to be ignored immediatly after assuming office. Left, right, middle... it matters not. Its best described by a famous man who said if you put all the politicians into a sack and shake it up then pull two out randomly "there ain't a dime's worth a' diference!" But despite all claims to the contrary the oath of loyalty is taken, in all practicality, to the government paycheck. A standing army is a mercenary (a.k.a. someone who fights for money) type of army. Hence it's inherent danger to a free society. Read up on the decline of the Roman Republic to learn more.
What if their was a number of natural disasters of huge proportions to strike the USA in a short period of time which became coupled with popular unrest as a result of a seemingly increasingly detached political elite. How many Americans would willingly accept "peacekeeping missions" by UN "peacekeepers" from foreign nations. Rather far fetched, admitedly, but something to think about.--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 18:04, 29 June 2007 (EDT)