State of Mankind

A New Way Of Thinking

The UN Agenda For Your Children

We have spent the last few days looking at the Green Agenda that is being aimed at children.  Much of this comes from the United Nations, so it’s worth looking at what the UN really wants to accomplish.  It is apparant that the UN would like to be the controller of the world’s religious beliefs, healthcare, population, economy, and environment, and it seems to find that sex and sex education are in the middle of these things.  So, of course, we have the International Guidelines on Sexuality Education, from the United Nations (June 2009).  The following is recommended to be taught to children ages 5-8:

“-Difference between consensual sexual activity and forced sex.” (Pg. 42)

“-Concepts of body rights and sexual abuse.” (Pg. 42)

“-Girls and boys have private body parts that can feel pleasurable when touched by oneself.” (Pg. 43)

“-Touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation.” (Pg. 48)

“-Masturbation is not harmful, but should be done in private.” (Pg. 48)

So, not only should we teach 5 year olds how to masturbate and enjoy sexual pleasure, but they need to come to an understanding of the difference between consensual sexual activity and forced sex.  Call me pessimistic about the UN running our moral culture, but this sounds like a child abuser’s dream.  I can hear the defense, in the international court that just condemned a man to death for cutting down a tree (see Green Hell, two postings back), saying “the child knew what s/he was doing.”  The guidelines continue, no less controversial as the ages get older.  From the 12-15 range:

“-People do not choose their sexual orientation or gender identity.” (Pg. 48)

“-Masturbation is a safe and valid expression of sexuality.” (Pg. 48)

“-Definition, reasons for, and legality of abortion.” (Pg. 44)

There are many more, but the idea is clear.  The first statement here is a scientifically unknown statement to be taught as fact.  The second, I think, is in case the kid was absent in kindergarten.  The third is absolutely unacceptable because of the age they are teaching it to, and there is no counter argument or idea anywhere in these guidelines.  If a child is taught why to have an abortion, but not why not having one is also a valid (possibly preferable) choice, it would be called indoctrination, especially at this young age.  What if parents object, or a certain culture doesn’t agree with this agenda?  The report responded to these concerns early on:

At the same time, respect for culture and values has to be balanced with the needs of young people, especially girls and young women.”  (Pg. 8 )

(We don’t have much need to coerce boys into abortions)

“Opposition to sexuality education is not inevitable.  Should opposition occur, it is by no means insurmountable.” (Pg. 9)

In other words, if they get their way, they will teach your children their moral standard, regardless of what you may think or do about it.  So much for freedom of conscience or parental rights or freedom at all for that matter.  Many states and school districts have already proposed these sorts of programs.  The healthcare law in the United States has made these issues national in nature.  Federal funding of education allows them to control what is taught in our schools.  There is a slow change of responsibility from parents to school districts to states to the federal government and finally the United Nations.

Now is the time for parents to take back their rights to teach their children their own morals.  Now is the time for states to reject federal money and control of schools.  Now is the time for everyone to wake up and see where our world elitist planners are going to take us if we don’t fight back!

« Previous post

One ResponseLeave one →

  1. Donna

     /  February 26, 2012

    Makes me thankful I homeschool.

    Reply

Leave a Reply