When Their True Colors Show…

Islam is not a tolerant religion–women are stoned for adultery, thieves have their hands cut off, infidels are beheaded, and homosexual men are thrown off the tops of buildings to their death. In an Islamic country, if you don’t fit the Islamic picture of what you are supposed to be, your life can get very complicated very quickly. There was an example of how this principle works internationally this week.

Fox News reported on Wednesday that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a major voting block in the United Nations, prevented 11 gay and transgender rights organizations from attending a meeting at the United Nations next month on ending AIDS. The OIC was organized in 1969 with the stated goal of “revitalizing Islam’s  pioneering role in the world.” At that time, it was called the Organization of the Islamic Conference. In 2011, it was renamed the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation. The purpose of the organization is to be the voice of the Muslim world and to safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world. Its membership includes 57 countries.

The article at Fox News reports:

In Egypt’s letter, a reason for the OIC’s rejection of the groups was not specified, but Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the groups appeared to have been blocked for their role in LGBT advocacy.

“Given that transgender people are 49 times more likely to be living with HIV than the general population, their exclusion from the high-level meeting will only impede global progress in combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic,” Power wrote in a letter to General Assembly President Mogens Lykketoft.

U.N. officials told Reuters that the E.U. and Canada also wrote letters to Lykketoft in protest.

“The movement to block the participation of NGOs on spurious or hidden grounds is becoming epidemic and severely damages the credibility of the U.N.,” Powers added.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon – caught in the middle of the battle for gay rights – has been an advocate for LGBT equality but has faced opposition from African and Arab states as well as Russia and China. In February, the countries protested six new U.N. stamps promoting LGBT equality.

The items on the liberal wish list in America are in direct contradiction to Islamic law. It will be interesting to see when the American left wakes up to this fact. When the gay population that supports the agenda of the political left realizes that under Sharia Law they will be killed, they may stop advocating for American courts to accept Sharia Law.

 

Getting Past The Rhetoric

There is a lot being said right now about what to do with the Syrian refugees fleeing their country. The Center for Security Policy posted an article yesterday that shines a different light on the situation.

The article reports:

President Obama made headlines today in reaction to a question from the press regarding the possibility of taking in Syrian Christian and other religious minorities ahead or in place of Syrian Muslims (Syria is majority Sunni Muslim.) The President responded aggressively claiming such a policy was, “… not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”

The reality however is that the Refugee Resettlement system already has “a religious test of their compassion”, to quote the president. And that’s a test which actively disfavors Christians, according to figures released by the State Department:

Of 2,184 Syrian refugees admitted into the U.S. since the Syrian civil war erupted in 2011, only 53 (2.4 percent) have been Christians while 2098 (or 96 percent) have been Muslims, according to State Department statistics updated on Monday. The remaining 33 include 1 Yazidi, 8 Jehovah Witnesses, 2 Baha’i, 6 Zoroastrians, 6 of “other religion,” 7 of “no religion,” and 3 atheists.

According to the CIA Factbook, Syria has a Christian population of 10%. Approximately between 500,000 and 700,000 Christians have fled Syria–about 16% to 23% of the estimated 3 million Syrians who have fled. Since Christians are one of the main targets of the Islamists, this figure makes sense.

So what is going on here? America does not get to choose her refugees.

The article reports:

As Nina Shea highlights at National Review, The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is typically the deciding agency, and recommends to the United States which refugees will be resettled. So the selection process hits several snags. Firstly, Christian refugees almost overwhelmingly avoid United Nations refugee camps out of legitimate fears of possible violence against them. Reports of attacks on Christians refugees by their Muslim counterparts have been reported, such as when Christian refugees on a boat in the Mediterranean were thrown overboard, and German police have openly urged publicly separating Christian and Muslim refugees, due to attacks. In one case a Christian convert was beaten unconscious by a metal baton.

The second part of the problem is the fact that the United Nations is very much controlled by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The OIC comprises the largest voting block in the United Nations. The OIC is headquartered in Saudi Arabia, where the practice of Christianity is illegal.

The article explains the third part of the problem:

Thirdly, and perhaps most largely problematic, is the appearance of overt anti-Christian bias by the State Department itself. As good friend of the Center, Institute for Religion and Democracy’s Faith McDonnell notes in her recent piece on the state of Christian refugees, the State Department has explicitly declared they, “would not support a special category to bring Assyrian Christians into the United States,” in response to a plan by a private aid group to fund, entirely free of taxpayer dollars, the transport of Assyrian Christians facing extermination by Islamic State.

In other words, even when its free, no cost to them, the State Department has preferred to snub Christians rather than save them.

There is a religious test for refugees. Unfortunately that test is not only against the best interests of America, it discriminates against a persecuted group of refugees.

Do The Rules And Words Of The United Nations Mean Anything ?

United Nations exhibit by OWI at Rockefeller P...

Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr

This week Israeli IDF sergeant Gilad Shalit returned home to Israel five years after being taken hostage by Hamas. Sergeant Shalit was kidnapped inside Israel in a cross-border raid via underground tunnels near the border with Gaza.

In June 1983, the United Nations passed the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages. The Convention states:

CONSIDERING that the taking of hostages is an offence of grave concern to the international community and that, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, any person committing an act of hostage taking shall either be prosecuted or extradited,

My questions is simple–“Where was the outrage at the United Nations over the kidnapping of this soldier?” To win his freedom, Israel agreed to release 1,027 Palestinian prisoners, including about 400 with “blood on their hands.” That means they were directly linked to the deaths of Israeli Jews in terrorism attacks. If the United Nations were truly dedicated to peacekeeping, shouldn’t they logically be outraged that there are now at least 400 more terrorists loose in the world? At the present time the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), a 56-member group of Islamic nations, is one of the main power blocs in the United Nations. As long as that is the case, the United Nations will not deal with terrorism or brutal dictatorships–in fact, in some cases it will enable and encourage them. It is time the United States took leadership and started a group of peace-loving democracies as a counter-weight to the United Nations. Then, and only then, will there be a world-wide body of nations attempting to work toward peace.


 

Enhanced by Zemanta