✨e domestic jurisdiction of States. What is now being proposed is, in effect, creation of some kind of supernational supervision of the relationship beTween the State and its citizens" (from an article in the January 1948 issue of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences). Later the same year (August 8, 1948) Mr. James Pomeroy Hendrick, legal triser to Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, stated in his progress report of the DepartBest of State Bulletin: "The theory of the covenant [Covenant on Human Lights] in itself is revolutionary; an undertaking by international treaty to insare certain rights which have traditionally been regarded as being solely of tional concern." CONFLICT WITH OUR CONSTITUTION Here are some examples of how the United Nations Charter conflicts with our ited States Constitution: The 10th amendment to our Constitution declares that, "The powers not delened to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Many of the treaties being proposed by the United Nations would invalidate the original purpose Bill of Rights. The sixth amendment declares that those accused of crime shall be tried sy "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall are been committed." Article 52 of the Covenant on Human Rights provides : the accused shall be brought to international trial before the International mittee on Human Rights, without benefit of jury. How interesting to recall that one of the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence was that ✰ depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:-For transying us beyond the Seas to be tried for pretended offenses." This covenant rie is not turning back the clock; it is turning back the calendar. other violations of our national or State laws, on the strength of our U. N. hership, have been the ruling that aliens may own land [the famous Fujii , which California law prohibits; and the seizure of the steel industry The President because the United Nations Charter does not seem to recognize ate property as a "human right." The solution to our present difficulty is an amendment to the Constitution, ting treaty-making power to the recognized framework of our national laws. support of this, we have the testimony of United States Senator Patrick Karran, May 22, 1952: "We Senators want a Constitution amendment to Titect us as well as the American people, and I am compelled to admit here ty, that I have voted for a number of treaties that I have never read. And i had known how these provisions of the United Nations Charter were going The used to make domestic laws, I never would have voted for the U. N. CharI am sure I will regret to my dying day that I ever voted for the United Nations Charter." [Italics supplied.] erica needs more of this kind of humility, the willingness to admit a misa. if its future is to be safeguarded. There is an ancient proverb that says, *meone betrays you once, it's his fault. If he betrays you twice, it's your HUMAN RIGHTS AND GENOCIDE now you must be wondering what all of this has to do with the church, Gel, and religious freedom. Well, at least two of these treaties of the Nations definitely intrude into such matters: the Covenant on Human and the Genocide Convention. Covenant on Human Rights is properly named. It does deal with rights. But so-called human rights are already possessed by men, not ed by governments. One writer has put it this way, in reference to human "No government can grant them, and no government can legitimately them. The sole purpose of government should be to defend them." exactly what our national Bill of Rights does: it protects the rights we have as human beings. In fact, our Government was established by who had rejected the Old World idea that individual rights are a grant government. Thus, the Declaration of Independence declares that men are by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these --are Life, Liberty, and the pursuant of Happiness." In other words, we these human rights upon birth, before we become a conscious part of ent. This concept the United Nations treaties deny, either directly or Article 13 of the covenant states: "*** Freedom to manifest c or belief shall be subject only to such limitations as are pursuant to reasonable and necessary to protect public safety, order, health, the fundamental rights and freedoms of others." Here we find the ment that our religious beliefs and manifestations (whatever that are to be subject to the limitations of laws yet to be enacted. Of are to be "reasonable and necessary" laws, but who determines majority power. Not only so, but the very first amendment to our will be contravened by the treaty provisions of an international in which the United States is reduced to a voting minority. In 1785, James Madison had this to say about religious liberty i "The religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these } This right is in its nature an unalienable right. * * * We maintai that in matters of religion, no man's right is abridged by the institu society, and that religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance." How interesting it is to turn to the Constitution of Communist Rı what it says about freedom of religion. Article 124 reads: “* * * religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recogn citizens." [Italics supplied.] Article 125 of the Soviet Constitution goes on to say: "In confc the interests of the working people [none others have interests in R in order to strengthen the Socialist system [which in Russia is atheism], the citizens of the U. S. S. R. are guaranteed by law: (a) of speech; (b) freedom of press; (c) freedom of assembly, including of mass meetings; (d) freedom of street processions and demonstrat "These civil rights are insured by placing at the disposal of the wor and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public bui streets, communications facilities, and other material requisites for t of these rights." What is wrong with that? you ask. When the government owns and the people possess nothing, the people are at the mercy of the g When the people are deprived of natural rights, they are dependent government to grant them their rights-which can be granted or w pleasure. In America, however, our political philosophy is that already possess their rights naturally-all the people, not just the and government is forbidden to abridge those rights. If you canno radical difference between those two concepts, then may God help us are beyond help. THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION Let us now consider the Genocide Convention. This is where the really begins to get nasty.3 Genocide is a coined word which means "race killing." It refers to of a person because he is a member of a certain race. The Genocide C however, is not limited to race killing; and it is the things which added, and the way they are to be handled, that should prompt opp the Genocide Convention. Article II of the convention itself will quickly reveal what we n the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts comm the intent to destroy in whole or in part, a nation, ethnical, racial, or group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) causing seric or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflictin group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destr whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births w group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to anothe Article III declares: "The following acts shall be punishable: (a) (b) conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) direct and public incitment t genocide; (d) attempt to commit genocide; (e) complicity in genoci Mr. Feller's book tells us that this is the first of such conventions forth from the United Nations, and adds that they are to be cons "binding obligations in the fields of human rights" (op. cit., p. 101) 3 The complete story, in readable form, of the background of the Genocide Cor found in Collier's magazine for March 3, 1951. Arguments on the Genocide ( from the floor of the Senate may be found in the Congressional Digest of Decer which also includes the complete text. Des incunt neopie. Moses could have been so per > and irtemnt to “mmit genocide. MILLIMI with somnicity 30 commit genochie. Wel irtete IV of the Genocide Com SRUUAT ne zen wide or my of the other tets 276,776 71 $ **ờ Whether they are constititionally responsibie nivON ROA Italies suppled.) Rulers, pudite zifted S. 20 enraken vervone. Off Moses must go. W de SW NTA pa buna..” according to article VL Purage or perhaps we should say, $ola¬P>\n\ 2 of the finire ve text eite the Prophet ATICS ash of his denunciation, as he isted the RfDzvers, and for fouz." enz. This was perfectly d„ved Ne zentionel the three and four transgressions of 18, 30 The pret sent sort to Jeroboam the king: "Ames bad cocspeed *illem. Ist of Israel: the land is not able to bear a Ver Amaziah said to Ames: “O they seer. De az. of Pudan, and there eat bread, and prendesy there be Sat and more at Eethei: for it is the king's chapel, and Us 7:12 13 that easy under these U N treaties Ye; he wo for roaring article 13 of the Covenant on Human R prophesying was entrary to pebie, savy 4222h harge that "the land is not able to bead" a" his a vis fortunate. He only bad to stand Teen burile eonceive what wou'd be done with s♪ **tual in,shed hearing all the charges that esetbe Vermond fair but little better, for he oren'y condo 2 the Lord Jesus Christ. Then he had th ardic saving. "Save yourselves from this preward Was there ever a clearer case of genocide Isack 10 way be interpreted as racial preidige ar anti Sumit xm, f the semiarire record will reveal that the Post P that he cried. “Men and brethren, what shat we do? following Pre sverted to Christianity (Acts 2:36-41) you see, has both signed and ratified the Genocide Convention. According t article VIII: "Any contracting party may call upon the competent organs o the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nation: as they consider appropriate for the prevention of acts of genocide or any o the other acts enumerated in article III." Do you begin to catch a glimmer of light? Do you begin to see why we ar bearing a testimony against such international treaties? So widespread hav these ideas become that our own Department of State has said: "There is no longer any real difference between 'domestic' and 'foreign' affairs." (Stat Department Publication 3972, Foreign Affairs Policy Series 26, released Sep tember 1950, with foreword by President Truman). In the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 19, we have a record of the Apostle Paul's missionary work in Ephesus, then the seat of idolatrous Diana worship. Con verts to Christ from among the Diana cult burned their books of magic, tossed out their silver shrines to the goddess Diana, and thereafter worshipped the true and the living God “in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). After the silver smiths had banded together to protect their fast-failing trade, we read that "the whole city was filled with confusion" (v. 29). If it had not been for a levelheaded town clerk, there might well have been a mob scene. But can you not picture how this would have been handled by U. N. machinery? We are rapidly reaching the place where true Christian missionaries may no longer go forth among heathen idolaters with a testimony to the true and living God of the Bible; for no distinction is henceforth to be made between national, ethnical, racial, or religious groups. This will serve to extend the brand of religious freedom found in Communist Russia: believe what you wish, but keep still about it. It was accused of the Lord, in Luke 23: 5, "He stirreth up the people." Ah, but the Covenant on Human Rights proposes to pass laws to "protect public safety, order, health, or morals." The Genocide Convention makes "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" punishable. Our Lord did not escape punishment under the Roman Empire. Can we hope to escape, those of us who give forth a Christian testimony, if these legal instruments become operative as domestic law in America? PRESBYTERIANS AND BAPTISTS TOO All this being true-or at least possible-it taxes one's thinking power to discover an explanation of how church after church has gone on record as favoring these measures. The recommendation of the standing committee on social education and action, 164th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, is an amazing example: "*** We recognize that the peace of the world cannot be secured until international measures to safeguard human rights and personal freedoms have been adopted by our Nation and all other nations. We call upon the members of our churches to pledge themselves anew to denounce the divisive forces that seek to destroy community and concord in the world, thwart the working of the United Nations, and impede adoption by this country of international measures to safeguard human freedom. We reaffirm our church's position and urge the prompt ratification by the United States Senate of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. We believe that to safeguard the right of a national group or race to survive is a minimal standard of freedom. *** We call upon the United States delegation to the United Nations to press for the completion of the proposed Covenants of Human Rights to include the full orbit of political, social, religious, and economic freedoms for individuals and groups" (Presbyterian Life magazine of July 5, 1952, italics supplied). Here also is the way the American Baptist Convention feels about the United Nations, according to a resolution adopted in Buffalo, N. Y., June 15, 1951: "Whereas the establishment of peace with justice for all mankind is one of the basic ideals of the Christian Church; and "Whereas the United Nations is the world organization dedicated to this search for a just peace; and "Whereas the United Nations has made steady progress toward this goal by furnishing a world forum for full and open discussion of political differences between the nations, and has provided the machinery for fair and peaceful solution of these differences, and is accomplishing a vast program of relief and technical assistance to needy areas of the world; and Whereas the basic charter of the United Nations opens membership to all uns having a stable government and willing to accept the principles of the ter: Therefore, be it Resolved, That we reaffirm our belief in the United Nations and its specialized tees responsible for preserving and extending human rights and fundamental boms: Furthermore be it Resolved. That we urge the responsible officials of our Government to work wh and through the United Nations at every opportunity, avoiding unilateral ti independent action, to the end that it may continue to grow in strength and ✔e to mankind” (italics of above clause supplied). Our only comment is this: We hope and pray that our United States Senators Id delegates to the United Nations bear in mind that we already have a Bill Rights in this country, and that these U. N. measures, if adopted, will work the destruction of our own freedom. ANTI-COMMUNIST SPIRIT The recital of these things generally gives rise to an anti-Communist spirit mong those who love and value true freedom. But this very spirit constrains us sk a question: "Why do you oppose communism?" "I oppose communism because it is atheistic," answers one. Yes, communisin is built upon a foundation of atheism—not mere passive athebut militant atheism. Your answer must mean that you believe in the Istence of God. The God of the Bible, however, is a Triune Being, Father, Son Holy Spirit. Is this the God in whom you believe? If not, there is danger at without realizing it, you may be confessing a false god which has no objecre existence. "I oppose communism because it is materialistic," still another answers our iston. Communism certainly is materialistic, rigidly so. Communism teaches that er is everything, and that man has no immaterial soul. Such a debased trine is repugnant to most people, and is resisted by a conscience that is htened. But if you oppose communism because it is materialistic, this s you believe that man possesses a soul. Tell us, what is going to happen your soul after death? The Lord Jesus Christ said: "For what shall it profit a.in, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Mark 8:36). Then a third question answers, "I oppose communism because of its philosophy fdalectics." Without a doubt there could be no communism apart from the philosophy of Lalectical materialism, the theory that there is nothing stable or secure, no ernal verities." If this is why you oppose communism, of necessity it means ?believe that some things in this universe are stable and secure. Nothing, we add, is more stable than the Gospel of Christ, for Jesus Christ is "the same sterday, and today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). Hence it cannot but be prayerful desire that you have put your trust in Him for your soul's salvaTo those who may not yet have placed their trust in Him, we present s promise of salvation: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou ot be saved. * * * For whosoever [whether Jew or Gentile] shall call upon tame of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10: 9 and 13). WHAT CAN BE DONE? It is said that there is only 1 of 2 ways treaties can be taken out of Senate, they are proposed: ratification or rejection. It goes without repeating hat we would urge the Senate to reject such international treaties as the Tenant on Human Rights and the Genocide Convention. They cannot be imented or enforced apart from a socialistic state. We can take heart that y of our Senators have realized this, and are about to consider an amendet to the Constitution which will restrict treaty-making powers sufficiently antain the right of Congress to formulate domestic law for this country. world behoove us all to write to our Senators a word of encouragement in 2 carter. They are our elected representatives, but they cannot intelligently et us unless they know how we wish that to be done. The freedom we have in America is too sturdy a barrier to the tyrannical ses of Socialists and revolutionaries for us ever to imagine we can relax ar fforts to preserve our Republic. This means that we must inform our 20572-5318 |