New UDIHR controversy developments

gay-rightsSome interesting new developments in the controversy over Bishop Charles Blake’s endorsement of the Universal Declaration of International Human Rights and the so-called Faith in Human Rights Statement.

COGIC has changed the web link for the third time. We’re not sure what that’s about but hopefully they are finished tinkering with their response. In the latest revision to the  original 22 page document, the church cites a recent African case using the UDIHR as a basis for legal action. Such a citation, they assert, is proof  the statement is only about protecting egregious human rights abuses and nothing else.

The original Declaration provides a basis by which the International Criminal Court has ordered the arrest of President Omar al‐Bashir of Sudan for his complicity and leadership in the murder of 300,000 Africans, and the displacement of 2.5 million Africans from their homes in Darfur.”

And COGIC (Use of the denominational acronym is only because its not clear exactly who’s writing these responses) asserts again that the word “homosexual” nor the phrase “homosexual marriage” was mentioned in the document(s) which is further proof that our claims are “malicious lies, …for devious ulterior motives”.

Technically, they are correct. As a matter of fact, Bishop Blake and those writing for him have framed their entire defense only on technicalities.  Its not a trump because (1) GCM Watch never made a claim that the word or the phrase is explicity mentioned in either of the documents. As a matter of fact we said it was an implied endorsement and (2) Technical arguements are problematic. Think of the gay christian arguement that “Jesus said nothing about homosexuality”. Technically true, but false due to motive.  Our original perspective was an interpretive one based on research which shows the document is used (and intended) to be interpreted in its broadest application which is of course inclusive of homosexual marriage rights.

Unfortunately, COGIC refuses to acknowledge the rather obvious existence of this reality.

Having said that, let’s examine this claim as if it were true. If one can argue that the IDUHR is a document which is a basis for human rights abuses, claims and applications, then the question must be asked does it cover all human rights abuses, claims and applications. Even if we do not agree with other parties’ claims on the application of the IDUHR does that nullify its intent? As much as I would like to say the humanist document doesnt apply to gay marriage, it does.

Also in Africa, the UDIHR was cited as the basis of his awarding a legal victory. This one was for homosexuals in Uganda.

Justice Arach called upon the international conventions and emphasised that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enjoins us to respect and protect them in a spirit of brotherhood, which includes sisterhood.” The final judgement on the case was issued yesterday to a court full of Ugandan lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people. Counsel Rwakafuzi recounted the historic moment that occurred yesterday when Justice Arach declared: ‘Human rights must be respected. It has been found that the actions of the officials that molested Victor Mukasa and Oyoo were unconstitutional, inhuman, and should be condemned.’

While the judge accurately applied the UDIHR to the particular case, the plaintiff described the ruling as “one leg inside victory”.  
“The fact that the Ugandan High Court is relying on international human rights conventions is a good sign that justice will come to everyone in Uganda some day”, said Victor Musaka.

Thus, the UDIHR is understood by the international community which subscribes to it to be fluid and encompassing of a plethora ofa gay rights. What are gay rights? Well just ask the gay community. We’ve already cited their near universal agreement that homosexual marriage is a fundamental human right. Its the same argument being used in this country and was successful in both Massachusetts and Connecticutt.

At the ceremony, attended by David Hall, COGIC’s emissary, one speaker emphasized the all inclusiveness of the Faith Statement and the UDIHR.

Again, there was no verbatim utterance of the h-word.  But given his anti-church support of homosexual rights, there’s no mistaking what Maxime Jacques Marcel Verhagen, the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs meant to convey in his speech to the cosigns of the Faith Statement.

When the Catholic church refused to endorse a UN initiative on gay rights, Verhagen summoned the Papal Nuncio of the Netherlands and publicly chided him  for not falling in line with the Dutch government. The Catholic church refused endorsement because it understood that the document went beyond the goal of ending violence against people.

When Verhagen addressed the signatories of the Faith Statement (of which Dr. Hall was in attendance) he told them in no uncertain terms that all rights meant all rights and all people meant all people.

It transposes important values, such as justice, equality, human dignity and liberty, into rights to which everyone is entitled. These are the birthright of all human beings; regardless of where they were born or to what cultural or religious tradition they belong. They reflect our common humanity, from which no person may be excluded.”

Although COGIC argues in its defense that they only signed  to fight “suffering, abuse, and extremism”, Verhagen clearly articulated to them at the time that “…no restrictions may be placed on human rights in the name of religion”. The foreign minister then tells Dr. Hall that his religion (COGIC) may not interpret human rights to mean something different than everyone else.

There are people who argue that human rights can be interpreted differently within different religious traditions. I believe that such relativism seriously undermines the international human rights legal system. So I am very glad that you, as representatives of different world religions, are endorsing the Universal Declaration today and proclaiming that your religions recognise and support human rights and fundamental freedoms for everyone, irrespective of religion. You are telling the world that religion and human rights are not conflict, that in fact religion can be a major source of legitimacy for human rights.”

Plain and simple it is the concept of univeralism or diaprax in this case of a religious umbrella that is being applied to this entire event. Consequently, if COGIC signs onto the statement then comes back home and says we dont interpret it to mean that, someone either is being disengenuous, duplictious or grossly uninformed.

Read Verhagen’s entire speech to the signatories of the Faith in Human Rights Statement. Its rather stunning considering the context of what has been discussed thus far.

Bishop Charles Blake endorses gay marriage declaration

blake2 A Special GCM Watch Report. COGIC leader signs onto document affirming universal rights to homosexual marriage.

  • Bishop Charles Blake endorses gay marriage declaration
  • Humanism blackens Blake speech
  • Bishop Blake releases UDIHR defense
  • An unholy covenant: our response to Bishop Blake’s defense document
  • New UDIHR controversy developments
  • UN document advocates gay marriage; pedophile access
  •  Just over two months ago, Bishop Charles Blake appointed Dr. David Hall, a midlevel church official, as his “official emissary” to the signing of the Universal Declaration of International Human Rights The Faith in Human Rights Statement was issued in conjunction with the anniversary of the UDIHR.

    The Memphis-based Tri State Defender said Blake’s invitation came at the behest of The Netherlands Queen Beatrix whose nation in 2001  was the first to grant full marriage rights to homosexuals. Queen Beatrix assembled this diverse religious gathering on the 60th anniversary of the document’s signing. And everyone was giddy with ecumenical joy.  But peel away the feel good humanism and you are left with a bizarre collusion of world religions and political religionists whose goal is to enact universal law governing humanity and its “rights”. According to the Tri-State Defender:

    The meeting took place in the Peace Palace during the International Inter-religious Faith in Human Rights Conference. Sponsored by The Carnegie Foundation and the government of The Netherlands, the event attracted an entourage of 10 supreme authorities of various world religions, political leaders, heads of state, and high-level UN officials.

    Invitees were asked to sign the 2008 Faith in Human Rights Statement, which, in essence, pronounces and confirms that true religion, irrespective of religion, gender, race or other distinctions, defends the human rights and fundamental freedoms of every human. [source]

    Blake, in a video message  aired at the event, could barely conceal his excitement at this opportunity to prove his ecumenical credentials.

    “As Presiding Bishop of the Church Of God In Christ, International, it is my great honor and privilege to attach my signature to the 2008 Faith in Human Rights Statement. On behalf our 12,000 plus Church of God in Christ congregations in America and in 60 nations of the world, I endorse and encourage the great ideas and ideals of this document.”

    The gospel of inclusion, part II

    Im curious about this. Although lauded as a monumental occasion, a historic first, not one slither of it was noted on the COGIC’s main website nor any of its subsidary sites. The Tri-State Defender, an African American newspaper with a regional audience and small circulation, was the only publication to carry the story. Why did COGIC only release the information to this small newspaper? Why not the much larger Commercial Appeal which is arguably COGIC-friendly?

    Secondly, Im not that familiar with COGIC polity, but does the Presiding Bishop have that much authority to sign up his entire church up for something like this without approval from the General Assembly? After all this is an indirect endorsement of homosexual marriage. Does COGIC really want to reverse the work of GE Patterson? And incidentally, Patterson did need to approval of the GA to issue its historic marriage proclamation. Read it.

    Third, what’s in this  package of “great ideas and ideals” that would prompt Bishop Blake to shower it with such glowing praise?

    For one, the UDIHR  (and its accompanying faith statement) is a mark of achievement for homosexual rights advocates who have pressured the United Nations for years to enshrine gay rights into its official positions.  Read carefully. Gays want the UN to “afford same-sex partnerships full protection of the law, equal to marital and other legally recognized mixed-sex partnerships, with regard to pension, inheritance, taxation, social security, custody and adoption, donor insemination and other services, in which discriminatory policies and practices currently exist. Additionally homosexuals want to “stimulate the development of positive images of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people and lifestyles as role models for young people.”

    In short, homosexual activists have invested much into the declaration because it would give them broad international leverage against any nation who refused to legislate acceptance of homosexual rights. Armed with the Declaration they could pressure the UN to impose sanctions against such nations. Although the Declaration has no legal power, it nonetheless is a powerful weapon (particularly Article 16) against non-participatory nations.

    Calling the general assembly statement a “powerful victory for the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, the Human Rights Watch gay and lesbian faction said the “statement confirm[s] that international human rights protections include sexual orientation and gender identity. It is the first time that a statement condemning rights abuses against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people has been presented in the General Assembly.”

    The Faith Statement in essence is an extenstion of the UDIHR. What the UDIHR does not address about the religious aspects of human rights, the Faith Statement does. And it follows the same path of securing universal acceptance of homosexual marriage among religious entities.

    A snapshot of the antichrist and his false prophet’s world religion

    But much more than just an affirmation of basic human rights, the manifesto is a stunning snapshot of what a future one world government and one world religion would look like under the rule of the antichrist. In our opinion this is what characterizes the ecumenical ideology of Bishop Charles Blake. Its dangerous, unbiblical and works against the goals of the kingdom of God. 

    How could any minister endorse and promote a message of the right to  ___________ (fill in the blank)? Should we preach rights or should we preach the message of the kingdom of God? If youre unsure of what that is look here.  If you don’t agree with that, let’s try a rewording of the Great Commission to see the effect. Can you imagine Matthew 28: 19-20 rewritten to say this?:

    Go into all the world and preach the right to commit sin.  Teach them all things that the United Nations has deemed is of human value. Teach them to respect other religions and lifestyles. And most importantly, dont try to change the world, just live in peaceful coexistence with them.  Respecting human rights is greater than doctrine or biblical directives. And lo, in return, they’ll respect your religion too. Amen.

    You may consider that far fetched but that’s exactly the lie David Hall is pushing with Blake’s approval. “Peace is the way the Lord would want us to live and respect each other’s rights and dignity,” said Hall. “The Human Rights Accord speaks louder than our politics or our religious affiliations.  We embraced each other and talked about issues that face humanity.” (our bold) 

    As you can see the Faith in Human Rights Statement espouses a humanistic “gospel”, contrary to the kingdom of God and its righteousness. It reduces the glory and divinity of our Lord Jesus to the diaprax heresy. It encourages God-less solutions to the issues of humanity, and instead elevates man’s own solution as better than God’s. It arrogantly declares that “true religion” is one where no religion is superior, thus enpowering it to “defend” any ungodly definition of human rights.  This is what Charles Blake enthusiastically endorsed.


    hall1hall3Above: (left) David Hall, Blake’s special emissary smoozing with “his holiness” Sri Swami Davananda Saraswati who teaches”vedana” a demonic belief that all humanity is divine, thus there is no need for God or Christ. The center picture is of Hall with Muslim Dr. Al-Shekih (center), a representative of Hawza Al-Najaf. Hawza is a Muslim political organization which has been criticized for religious tyranny inside Iraq. 

    The right picture is of Hall with “his holiness” Drikung Skyabgon, Chetsang Rinpoche, the supreme head of a variation of Tibetan buddhism. Adherents practice  what is termed “Phowa”. The practitioner learns how to expel his/her consciousness or mindstream through the fontanel at the top of the skull at the moment of death. This practice is said to aid the practitioner in remaining aware through the death experience, thus aiding one in attaining enlightenment in the Bardo (the state in between death and the next rebirth).

    We are supposed to respect these demonic beliefs and encourage people to remained enslaved to this insanity?

    And I heard another voice from heaven saying, ‘Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. (Revelation 18:4,5).

    Clarification update 03.02.09:

    Wiley Henry, a senior staff writer at the Tri-State Defender said the text of the article was submitted by someone who represents COGIC and was edited by TSD staff.

    Update 7:45pm Links to faith statement and Bishop Blake’s video message added.