What a nonsensical essay. It's primary objective seems to be a determination that international appeals for human rights "are a plot" or, even worse, a communist, godless plot.

The United Nations has many vulnerabilities -- a fact true of any effort to achieve consensus amongst the nations of the world, all with their own problems, objectives, aspirations and limitations. The United States and other powers have each done more than their share of throwing sand into the gears of the United Nations.

Instead of all of the innuendo about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the author might try discussing those rights and that ways that his heroes have performed with regard to the attainment of those rights for those repressed by right and left, capitalist and socialist, Christian and non-Christian countries.
HJBoitel | 03.31.07 - 10:29 am | #

Actually, if you read the article all the way through, I think you'll find the point is made more clear in the last few paragraphs. Which, incidently, is not what you're thinking it to be from what must have been a quick scan of the article. Give it a more in depth look.
Jarnor23 | 03.31.07 - 12:58 pm | #

Jarnor23 -

Thanks for the suggestion. I have gone back and re-read the piece. As I read it, it appears to clearly have the very double standard that it decries.

The UN is not a perfect organization, nor are any of its constituent members. There have been previous violations of human rights by UN members, including those who often associate themselves with the moral high ground.

It is terrible that various members of the UN, including permanent members of the security counsel, have manipulated UN processes to ignore some systemic violations of human rights and to politicize other such violations.

That does not warrant Mark Shea's headline being "The UN is a joke". If, based on notable operational failures, within the Catholic Church someone headlined, "The Catholic Church is a joke", what would Mark's reaction to that be?

Going to the article itself, my problem with it is that a person who reads it with a good faith intention of learning is given little, if any guidance on human rights and a lot of sarcastic comment as to how the Declaration of Human Rights can be used as a weapon by those who disrespect human rights. Of course there is merit to the point and that device has been used by advocates across the political spectrum.

I came away from the article with the impression that I had just read another Boltonesqe sermon, calculated more to encourage dis-respect for the United Nation than respect for Human Rights.

I do not think that publications devoted to Roman Catholic principles ought present the issue in that way. Of course they and this blog have a right to say whatever they want in whatever way they wish. Just as you and I have the right to point out why we feel they are off-base.

I suggest you go back and read the article to see if I am correct as to the underlying theme.
HJBoitel | 03.31.07 - 2:08 pm | #

The UN is a joke that became tired and unfunny long ago. How long before the new law prohibiting criticism of Islam is used to bring Pope Benedict before some human rights tribunal? Here's something about the law:
http://www.becketfund.org/ index....c67e22514a47505
reluctant penitent | 03.31.07 - 5:14 pm | #

Reluctant Penitent -

The United Nations is a political organization -- what else can it be since it is made up of political states?

Political means that nation states tend to take positions that are in their self interest. That is particularly so when they and things they hold dear are under attack.

An effort should be made to reduce the hypocrisy level in the UN, just as it ought be reduced in the governments of many of its constituent countries.

Manipulation of UN polices, to side step the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other UN declarations of principle, should be discouraged.

The strongest countries of the United Nations, particularly those that are permanent members of the Security Council, should set the pace by avoiding such manipulation themselves and by calling attention to efforts by others to engage in such manipulative conduct.

Do you agree?

What would you think of a resolution condemning religious persecution or discrimination of any kind by any member Government?
HJ Boitel | 03.31.07 - 9:12 pm | #

Such a resolution would be nice, but a meaningful version of it would never be approved because it would require the consent of nations that have no interest in ending the persecution of religious minorities. On the other hand, we now have what is effectively a legal basis for prosecuting criticism of Islam. More about it here:
http://www.breitbart.com/article...article=1& cat=0

The UN is hopelessly corrupt. The governments of nation states are necessary evils, which is why they ought to be stripped of their powers as much as possible. The UN, on the other hand, is an unnecessary evil and ought simply to be dissolved--with the exception, perhaps, of the parts of it (if there are any) that deal effectively with practical health issues, like malaria, for example.
reluctant penitent | 03.31.07 - 10:40 pm | #

reluctant penitent -

The council that passed the resolution has no enforcement powers and it is not a resolution of the United Nations.

Essentially, what we have here is a group of Muslim countries saying that it is wrong to defame any religion, and mentioning Islam in particular. What would you expect them to say? Most Catholics would likely be in favor of a resolution that it is wrong to defame any religion, particularly Roman Catholicism.

There is no nation state without a government. There is no civilization or security without government. Particularly in a nuclear age, and particularly as interdependence of nations increases in a shrinking world, there has to be an international forum and an international set of enforceable rules.
HJBoitel | 03.31.07 - 11:27 pm | #

I am not in favor of putting on trial people who criticize the Catholic Church, whether they do so in a cartoon or in some other medium, and I doubt very much that "most Catholics" would. I am not suggestion that the governments of nation states be dissolved--unlike the UN, they are necessary evils we cannot do without. It is interesting that your defense of the council's resolution is that it is not likely be implemented. This is about all that one can say in defense of most things the UN does, which suggests that, at its best, the UN is useless.
reluctant penitent | 04.01.07 - 12:26 am | #

Reluctant penitent -

I would appreciate it if you will not rephrase what I say.

1. I spoke about whether most would approve a resolution. A resolution is simply a statement. It is not law that is enforceable with a criminal or civil penalty.

2. I did not "defend" the Council resolution upon the ground that it is not enforceable. I simply pointed out a fact that is not consistent with the claim that people would end upon being prosecuted based on the resolution.
HJBoitel | 04.01.07 - 12:37 am | #