The Human Development Report, 2000, cites that one of the critical factors for the advancement of universal human rights is to be reliant on “individual commitment and community struggle.” Developing countries might agree that the fundamental assumptions of human rights may be desirable; they are neither practical nor realistic in a non-Westernized, underdeveloped, politically and economically weak society. These countries argue that while industrialized states are devoid of the economic struggles which the HDR identifies as interrelated to human rights, it is unfair to expect that in the midst of turmoil and despair that they would be able to adopt the same principles and values as developed states.
The UDHR asserts that there are universal human rights, substantiating this claim by noting that many non-Western countries signed the Declaration. It also cites the adherence of people and government to the principles of human rights through the promotion of good governance. However, since the initiation of the UDHR in 1948, countries have been subject to institutionalization injected with capitalism, democracy, and globalization particularly in the past two-decades. These changes have dramatically shifted the economic and political environment since the introduction of the UDHR which fails to recognize the threats and struggles of modern development.
Therefore, the notion of universal human rights does exist. However, due to economic, political, and cultural differences the reality of a universal application of human rights standards in today’s world is fantastical. Yet, as we evolve into an era of internationalization we are confronted with the possibilities of the future in terms of policy formation and the conceptual ‘world citizen.’ In this regard, human rights may at some point be attainable, but again this remains a matter of debate. First and foremost, the notion of human rights must be universally understood within the same context across boundaries for it to have universal applicability prior to proposing the question ‘are there universal human rights.’
How do we get there?
33 comments:
The fact that we have to ask this question is a sad commentary and demonstrates the alarming lack of knowledge among many regarding of who we are and the common background and future we all obviously share. Regarding those individuals/governments who still violate human rights ... further sadness.
Good article. We are not evolving into an era of internationalization as the article states. In fact, this era started already; thus, we are in the midst of for at least a decade. Yes, universal human rights do exist and difficulties can be overcome. It appears that mixing this endeavor with politcal agendas that seek through an imposing approach to democratize the world creates lots of resistence together with the selection of locations politically convenient. Being called a "citizen of the world" already for many years by friends, it would be most useful to take an approach that seeks common ground on the basis that we are truly all part of the same family--human, regardless of religion... There is an abundance of resources of all varieties that could be freed to move this forward. Many thanks for this posting which is so hopeful!
Wow, this is a great concept. I think this should be the standard in which all are treated, but governments' get in the way as do individuals' ideas as to how others should be treated. I believe that we should able be love and respect each other and learn to get along.
The primary human right should be peace. For peace implies all other human rights: clean water, sufficient food, sufficient shelter, and sufficient health care.
"Being universally understtod within the same context" is the key point to many factors within the human race. If we all valued the same "things" there would be no conflict and therefore we could not understand peace and would have nothing to drive our human need to achieve and better ourselves.
Though getting to the top of the mountain provides a fantastic view, it does not always provide the satisfaction for which we
The way to observe other peoples Human Rights is not to go around the world interfering with their Tradition of things by trying to change the way they live.
A village in Africa was given a water pump so they would not have to go to
the river to get water.
When the benefactors revisited a few months later, they found the people
were still going to the river to get water.
When asked why they were not using the well, the reply was, ' our Tradition is
to go down to the river. Using the well is not our way of doing things.'
Give help when asked for but not give help until it is asked for.
To live and let live is the motto.
That is my opinion.
Truly a human rights standard would be fantastic, but need not be fantastical. As the article points out, it is very challenging to find such a consensus among governments, but I believe that is mainly due to the notion that human rights are an invention of government.
The American Declaration of Independence states that people "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." That said, the function of government is not to grant human rights but "to secure these rights."
Perhaps the reason world leaders struggle to find the consensus that the article describes is because they don't consider that human rights are endowed by our Creator. Once we realize rights come from God, then the challenge is to find the common ground and core values among the world's faith traditions that provide the framework to draft a universal declaration of human rights.
The Chairman of the Global Peace Festival, Dr. Hyun Jin Moon made similar remarks at the UN in 2008. http://ow.ly/1mWIo
Human rights are "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."
Universalist and Egalitarian in outlook; proponents of the concept usually assert that all human being are endowed with certain entitlements merley by reason of being part of human society.
Such entitlements can can exist as shared norms of actual human moralities, as justified moral norms or natural rights supported by strong reasons, as legal rights at a national level, or as a legal right within international law.
However there is no consensus as to precise nature of what should or should not be regarded as a human right in any of the above senses, and the abstract concept of human rights has been a subject of intense philosophical debate and criticism. .
The intellectual foundations of the concept can be traced back to rationalism of the Enlightenment, with figures such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant.
In the political realm the concept was brought to the fore in the 18th century by the American Revolution and French Revolution, culminating in the United States Bill of Rights and Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen respectively.
However, the concept only began to gain a substantial hegemony in influence over international law and geopolitics after the Second World War, with the introduction of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. ”
—Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Google - Wikipedia = source
The various cultures and demographics of our planet fail to see our common bonds; we all breath the same air. We drink of the same water and we consume the same fruits of the earth. We all strive to learn, to dance and to provide for our children.
Sadly enough, we live in a world with narrow minds and closed doors. While the idea of Universal Human Rights is potentially attainable, I fear we will not reach this within our lifetime; let us hope that with each generation we will continue to accept and adapt.
Once the blood of all races is combined, there will be no difference in skin color; natural segregation will melt away. As soon as the bar of sexuality is lifted, people will be able to love as they choose. When the walls of religion are torn down, there will be no more discrimination.
Attaining this goal of understanding among humans is very simple, yet a difficult task for most. All we need is Tolerance, Patience and Persistence.
I read Emily's quote from a post on Taiwan newspaper; never read her books before. I have so inspiring thoughts from reading what she was doing and she was so independent a wonderful lady.
Life experience emerges from true struggle and engagements with your life's journey- and God likes to be truely on your own hands. He trains us first left hand doesn't know what right hand's doing. It has taken such as long journey to mellow. As a biologist, I would like to tell you that the complete of the first true cell -enkaryote had taken1.5 billion year to finish.
Look at V. Havel, a great politician in our time, also. I would like to quote his,"
Havel’s speech to World Economics Forum in Davos on February 4, 1991;
“It is my profound conviction that we have to release from the sphere of private whim such forces as: a natural, unique and unrepeatable experience of the world, an elementary sense of justice, the ability to see things as others do, a sense of transcendental responsibility, archetypal wisdom, good taste, courage, compassion, and faith in the importance of particular measures… Soul, individual spirituality, first hand personal insight into things; the courage to be himself and go the way his conscience points, humility in the face of the mysterious order of Being, confidence in his own subjectivity as his principle link with the subjectivity of the world-these are qualities that politicians of the future should have.”
The fall of communism, says Havel, can not be seen as simply the end of a political regime. It is the end, the crisis, of modern thought-thinking with thoughts that have already been thought, attempting to explain and control everything that exists, the mentality of exploitation.”
Hope you enjoy it.
It is going be dawning soon here in Phuket. Your beloved territory of Asia. : -) And it is in you survillance. Best regards.
No welfare politics no human rights at all!
When I read your topic; my envision on you is a person comes to me. You need staunch independence to work and to write; only creative minority will come to you; HaHa you will be alone for a long time; dont need to cry, be resilient!
Who is the person? Let me quote her, "If I can stop one heart from breaking, I shall not live in vain."
Emily Dickinson
Let your compassion shines on the people who are afflicted; stay with Burma. side with Aung San Suu Kyi!
Well - politically the international Bill of Human Rights were declared universal by 172 of 194 states in 1993 (the Vienna Declaration); I would certainly maintain that human rights are universal - as a well-defined international social construct.
Very interesting topic!
Sadly, I think it will remain a very subjective notion, and will unfortunately be defined by those in power according to their best interests....
In my opinion, the main ingredient for reaching a universal human rights understanding (if such a thing is possible) is through investment in education systems....where everyone growing-up understands what his/her rights are as opposed to being imposed/ declared....of course, rule of law is also a key ingredient for any success in this area, then again it goes back to who is in charge, and what their interpretation of rights is.....
I also believe there are Universal Human Rights; I think when we go beyond cultural or other conditionings, when we go beyond the ego-desires, in that space where we are different identities of the same soul, perhaps we can feel them
Universal Human Rights are fine words and a luxury in today's real world. Such Rights can only start to make sense when civilised nations such as the United States and other powerful nations begin to implement such Rights across the board by applying the law equally to all humans. The United States for one, has been at the vanguard of abuse; the Quantanmo Bay Consentration Camp is a simple axample of such abuse. How can Human Rights become universal without the universal backbone to to see them implemented equally to all, irrespective of nationalities?
Human Rights are fine words for fine causes...if only nations put their money and efforts where their mouths are...We can only hope...
Thanks Helena.
That brings me to the next thing.
Each and every one of us have a Natural and Moral right to clean air, clean water and untainted food. It is our Human right. So when industry pollutes the enviroment.
industry itself is infringing on our Human Rights.
Politics are of the intellect, are of materialism and ownership devoid of any humanity.
Materialism is born of the intellect, not of the Human Spirit.
Of course there are Universal Human Rights.
As this nice article says, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines & defends 30 of them. Not only is the UDHR a clear & democratic document, I believe it has had more political impact in the modern era than any other written document - I agree with Eleanor Roosevelt that it is a modern Magna Carta.
Of course there are universal human rights. What is lacking is the will & incentive to agree & adhere to them.
It breaks my heart that the USA is not a signer of the 1948 Proclamation by the United Nations General Assembly of the UDHR. Perhaps this White House can admit and address that error.
I'm glad that you pointed out that the US did not ratify the UDHR. Perhaps this has to do with their decision to refuse membership into the former League of Nations (which ironically was in large part formed due to Roosevelt's recognition of a need for a united international organization). I believe that there is certainly a lack of will to enforce universal human rights due to various social constructs.
Racism is one example. Lacewell, in a 2009 CNN commentary so stated “Race is a social construct.” This raises a barrier to the dissolution of racism stalling the progression towards a post-racial America. Zuckerman, from U.S. News & World Report (1994), noted the tragedy of racism as it continues to flourish through bias based on one’s skin color. Racial revenge based on “the sins of the past” does not aid in building a just society of equality. In pursuit of social equity, we should strive to build bridges, not burn them.
Is life good? It is a question of faith.
Faith without doubt is dogma. True faith allows doubt, but not suspicion.
Are there universal human rights? You need faith to answer it. And I would like to answer it cheerfully.
Last two days I have had chance to receive a Burmese lady who married to my Norwegian business friend. She thinks that without international pressures, Burma junta will not change-there is no hope for Burma’s human rights. Burma’s human rights have been betrayed by China, India, and ASEAN. Look at ASEAN meetings in dealing with the abused human right; you would be pissed off with these moral dwarfs of state leaders. I remembered several years ago under Arroyo’s presidency, her minister of foreign affair responded to the request from EU to render remedies towards the improvement of Burma; hear this Catholic educated minister’s voice; “We ASEAN countries internal affairs don’t need EU’s interference.” I almost fell down from my chair and would imagine that his beloved Bishop would chasten him immediately. What a shame of State and Church separation to be abused.
China and India need oil from junta; they have to appease junta-a naked injustice in front of the world.. The States doesn’t have direct interest there, so the US will not work as hard as they have done for Kuwait and Iraq. This is the doubt of human right can be universal or not. I have been glad that my Burmese friend has not lost her faith in universal human right in spite of the limp international supports.
Back to look at Taiwan’s human rights- their right of self-determination; God, they want to decide their own future on this land and people. Only two countries against this and continue to deprive their right- continue to deny the basic universal human rights of 22 million population.
Guess who? One is the greatest world leader in democracy and human right- USA; they need to implement their holy foreign policy- the best national interest- one China policy.
The bailout for this economy crisis – the cause seeded several decades ago. I can imagine the bailout for international moral disaster will happen not long from now.
Our Washington politicians need to aware that the double standard and hypocritical to persecute the prophet will not solve the problem on long term accountability. I wish to tell my friends here there are people as prophets in Taiwan; they never give up their faith in universal human right; they are the children of faith. Their cryings and tears will reach to God, and God will answer if with His justice.
Therefore, I say that this is relating to faith.
G'Day Helena, you excel in selecting thought provoking issues, and no doubt that's what we need to usher in change.
The UDHR is a fair standard by which to evaluate whether a given population is being afforded, or denied, human rights.However, it lacks an effective enforcement mechanism, so that in most cases the very groups that are violating human rights are being asked to police themselves — an expectation which is rarely met.
You suggest that, "the notion of human rights must be universally understood within the same context across boundaries." I wonder how effective, or even if it is possible to achieve a global context, simply because every group, tribe, nation state, ad seriatum contributes to a diverse and disparate experience that may not be possible to reconcile
The UDHR drafting process was undoubtedly influenced by Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which had be published five years before the UDHR.
The course of human evolution has left us the only surviving species amongst the genus Homo, but with extremely distinct cultural heritages based on isolation, challenges from climate changes, diet, competition for scarce resources.
While I don't entirely agree with Maslow's order, there exist certain physiological needs that are necessary to human life which I would contend should include: breathing, water, food, homeostasis, shelter, and while Maslow includes sex I think it more appropriate to form a broader category of — association.
Association would include sex, but also freedom to form a family, join together as a tribe, a people, or a nation state.
Access to these creature necessities should not be denied, withheld, or constrained, as long as the exercise of those "rights" do not infringe on the rights of others. Until these rights become available to all it will be unlikely to achieve a "universal understanding within the same context" while the world lurches towards globalization.
When we reach that state then we can expand our definition to guarantee freedom of religion along with "economic, social, and cultural liberties.”
In so doing we must be aware of the unforeseen costs such as the possible extinction of languages, or the devastation of micro cultures. In reordering society we must be careful not to let our grasp exceed our understanding. From my perception your earlier commentator, LU, was pretty much on the mark.
How do we understand the human condition such that we in the West are able to define human rights as universal? The UN has gone to some lengths to define and defend universal human rights. But how legitimate is it to cross cultural borders with a postmodern rational view and insist that peoples whose epistemologies are radically different adopt our ways?
Cultural history and systems is a complex subject but, to add perspective to such a question, we might take lessons from Jean Gebser. His systems view of cultural change indicates that of the five forms of human consciousness, all are present, though some latently so, in those who have reached (or been mastered by) the rational and spiritual mutations. Seeing this may allow a special sensitivity to the overlaying of the concept of rights on cultures that have no such notion at all.
David,
Thank you for such an insightful response. I'm in the midst of my Ph.D. in International Psychology and my Master's is in International Relations and I ask myself these same questions. I'm glad you brought them up.
I think Samuel Huntingtion would provide a substantial response regarding your first paragraph as he theorized the "West vs. the Rest" in that most of our globalization and universalization attempts are Western in nature. Many nation-states strongly oppose Westernized values as they conflict with their cultural values. The “West versus the Rest” is plausible should the West not modify its position to be more receptive to ideological and cultural characteristics that define a country. Should the non-Western countries feel compromised, then culture may very well be the underlying motivator for conflict. Therefore, the future of conflict may be a “clash of civilizations”, yet ideological and economic sources will remain at the forefront as tools that serve the means to an end.
Although through globalization and integration it is theorized that globalization will integrate societies in which relationships are built that strengthen the ideological and economic bonds between people. But you are certainly correct in that an imposition and ignorance to the values of others and the complexities of the human condition defies any attempts at universalizing human rights norms. In that regard, it would be beneficial to utilize the socialization process as a means for rational and spiritual evolution.
Your question pinpoints to the paradox of human rights. To be valid, they must be granted as universal. Yet, this universality is constantly challenged and as such serves more as an ideal than a reality. Nevertheless I believe that every body agrees with the essence of it, and this is why.
One thing which is surely universal is suffering. We all have moments of suffering in our life, no matter what. What changes though, is what we consider suffering to be, how we express it and how we deal with it. Human rights on their side are a constant social, political, religious, cultural etc construct. Yet, similarly to discussions about suffering, if you find the right approach to exchanging about human rights, you can have a shared understand and agreement about it. This however may imply not refering to a body of rights, but to the other's social, political, religious and cultural experience and knowledge.
The point then is not to focus on human rights from a legal perspective, but from a shared experience one.
My business employs every opportunity to advance human rights through respect, and the granting of dignity. There are those that leverage the human rights principal to take advantage of others and create a wrong impression of the fight for better treatment of everyone. Should it be a crime to abuse the principal of human rights and dignity to advance ones own agenda ahead of the common good? I am speaking from experience in a 'developed' corner of this small and wonderful world where I will always believe that a human right is for the people and should be above law, policy and government.
About 10 years ago I said to a friend of mine, who used to be foreign minister of Mexico, that I would like all human beings to get 3 meals a day and basic schooling.
He said that it will never happen since vested interests will prevent it. To get their trade needs to be fair so that developing countries can trade themselves out of poverty.
Having said that if you look at poor people in India (50% of the worlds poor are on the subcontinent) they unlike their Western counterparts are happy. They take care of each other and do everything in their power to help those in need.
The notion of human rights - to the some extent - is important to minimize majority's oppression toward minority.
Awareness shortage of human rights creates fear for minority in the midst of majority, such as sheep in the midst of wolves (Matthew 10:16).
Society with awareness of human rights at least reduces threatens to the "sheep", even though the awareness does not eliminate the threatens at all.
Dear Study Cycle,
I appreciate you're response and find it interesting how you incorporated a biblical reference into this discussion.
“The most readily available way of determining the source of rights is to look around and see the society itself…. Human rights are what human beings determine they are (Fukuyama, 2001).” In that regard, it is important that we are grounded with a sense of humanity and spirituality to overcome the imprudence of oppression.
But in and through it all, it may be best to put yourself in the shoes of those in power. The strong rule the weak. It has ever been so. It is unlikely to change. Power is the ultimate high. Unfortunately, it is also the most debauching of one's judgment, perverting justice whenever it is in the power-holder's best interest.
Remembering this helps. But when it comes to how power structure really screw up, from time to time, an analysis of historically rooted cultural differences in consciousness is invaluable.
IF ANY 1ST OR 2ND CLASS CITIZENS, OR ANY PUBLIC DIPLOMAT, SEEK TO KNOW IF INTERNATIONAL INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS EXIST, THEN ASK JOSEPH RATZINGER, WHO IS UNIVERSALLY SECURED AS THE SUPREME PONTIFF POPE BENEDICT XVI, OF THIS SPIRITUALLY BANKRUPT COMMERCIAL WORLD THAT IS UNDER GLOBALIZATION POLICIES BY THE IMF.
The Catholic Human Rights Revolution
George Weigel
-the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on
Religious Freedom-is frequently described as an expression of
Christian personalism, because of its teaching that every human
being has an inalienable right to immunity from state coercion in
matters of religious conviction. As the declaration puts it, "the
right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity
of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed
Word of God and by reason itself."
Thus religious freedom, according to the Council Fathers, is not
to be understood in subjectivist or voluntarist terms, but rather
as a right arising from the "very nature" of the human person.
But also has what could be termed a "public
meaning": for the doctrine of religious freedom discloses
important truths about the structure and operation of a rightly
ordered political community. The state that honors the principle
of religious freedom is by definition a limited state, which
acknowledges its inherent incompetence In certain crucial spheres
of life.
By reason of its "public meaning," then, the Declaration on
Religious Freedom is a defense of social pluralism as well as a
defense of the rights of the person. This second dimension of the
doctrine of religious freedom (which is, of course, rooted in the
doctrine's personalist dimension) has affected contemporary
history in a dramatic way, giving a public
edge that might not have been fully anticipated in 1965.
The pontificate of John Paul II has deepened and extended both the
"interior" and "public" meanings of the Declaration on Religious
Freedom. By his constant references to the declaration and his
persistent stress on religious freedom as the first of human
rights, the Holy Father has secured the position of in the tradition of the Church, against the claims of
those who continue to regard the declaration as a fatal concession
to secular modernity, liberal individualism, and/or religious
indifferentism.
Moreover, religious freedom has become the centerpiece of the Holy
Father's defense of the universality of basic human rights, which
the pope regards as essential to the very possibility of a genuine
global dialogue about the human future. (1991), (1993), and (1995).
Why has loomed so large in the Holy Father's
thought? Surely the answer touches on the fact that the
declaration reflects key concepts in the pope's anthropology. If
man's nature is religious, the state must acknowledge that fact.
By not acknowledging it, the state, in effect, redefines man as
less than what he is. In a century in which false humanisms have
wreaked havoc on humanity, the Christian humanism of John Paul II
is a powerful antidote to the fear that seems to dominate the
human encounter with "difference." The pope's humanism also
provides a sure foundation for a mature hope that humanity remains
capable, under grace, of building a civilization worthy of those
made in the image and likeness of God.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HRREVOLU.TXT
you can fininsh the text here, but it is clear that the supreme pontiff, over all who have not claimed any international individual human rights and fundamental commercial freedoms, supports and upholds fundamental religious to every individual.
Now we, all human beings, can access equal and fair trade using every economies output. All sovereign nations are supposed to have the capacity to print, coin and price their own local commodities which is the basis of equal and fair trade. However, having all banks impregnated with federal reserves has inflated national debts around the globe.
Now, sovereign nations only exercise defacto powers due to their incapacity to pay their debts and inoculate commercial husbandry – abundant living using inflationary debt instruments – create money within each nation – state. Apart from the kingdom of God , there is no human government or individual human being that deserves merit over another when it comes to equal human rights and justice for all of humanity.
May we be honored and seen worthy to be recognized as the Prodigal Son of the Most High Ethiopian God – Emperor Haile Selassie I Jah Ras Tafari Makonnen – Negus the African Christ, protectorate of human beings, defender of the faith, and Smithsonian’s ‘Absolute Divine Monarch’; - who will not violate our father’s Universal Declaration for Human Rights which he has pre-ordained for us to receive in the coming year of the African – Human – jubilee.
We are trying to initiate a worldwide fast (purifying human minds and souls) for the churches that are funded by federal reserve notes – us money, created by the Jesuits for the disguised Pope’s benefit. Federal reserve notes and all credit currency are jurisdictional commercial tools that developed nations, under papal’s secret dominion, impose upon 3rd world nations to obligate (tax) them and legally confiscate their land and natural resources.
Every church in Jamaica profess ‘Jesus Christ’ as our lord and redeemer from the throne of David in Ethiopia . We love Jesus so much that we manifested his characteristic traits but could not walk in full fellowship (if not a Jesuit) until we followed the signs and symbols of the Throne of David in Ethiopia.
Negus is the title given to the true Son of humanity, from the Solomonic Dynasty, as John said, “with faith in the Son, anyone can conquer the (commercial) world” in private diplomacy.
As the Jews of yesterday solidified their position in history by trusting and obeying the Law. The UDHR is the ‘Elect of God’s’ Law, Negus the Christ, our truly anointed African – Human – Christ. We do not mean to express our optimism forcefully but unity is key in overthrowing globalization.
We only hope the Holy See take a moral stand in light of these revelations, and repent from SIN – economical exploitation with valueless Jesuit money; so they can join humanity and experience the Spirit of brotherhood uniting all human souls under UDHR.
The papal office includes a number of titles. First of these is bishop of Rome . As bishop, his Episcopal chair is located in the church of St. John Lateran , not in St. Peter’s Basilica.
The pope is also described as vicar (representative) of Christ, successor of the prince of the apostles (Peter), Patriarch of the West, supreme Pontiff of the universal church under Jesuit – federal reserve commercial jurisdiction, primate of Italy, archbishop and metropolitan of the Roman province, sovereign of the Vatican City which Mussolini created to replicate human culture from Ethiopia, and servant of the servants of God that deny Godship status or recognition to anyone else
Why the ‘Holy See’ cannot become full members to the Universal Charter?
This is a dilemma that will open the door for the international community to get full and complete disclosure, which will lead to total transparency for accountability of all financial and judicial matters administered by their Jesuits – federal reserve (private) bankers under the Popes sole authority.
These individuals exclusively own and control paper credit money as a commodity when the rest of the human nations have to bow to them as a secret society of Jesus Christ in full fellowship with the Pope, who is considered Jesus the European Christ in disguise from the New Testament, seen through Peter’s Italian spectacles, which is the doctrine of this mythological philosophy from the papacy.
In the bible, when Jesus ran out the moneychangers from the temple, he never considered why an African Christ had allowed for the moneychangers in the temple anyway. In ancient times, money (gold, silver, etc…) was brought to a temple and weighted by priest or prophets to prevent cheating the scales of International Commerce.
Today the federal reserve Jesuits that are directly under oath to the Pope have cheated the scales of International Commerce, while creating a world food crisis with worthless inflationary commercial debt instruments, un-backed credit paper, fiat money, Satan’s (slanderer and resistor to spiritual brotherhood) jurisdictional tools used to manipulate the U.S. government from the great depression of the 1930’s up until the present moment; and exploit human lives in senseless wars for commercial dominion over sovereign territories.
Since the U.S. government went bankrupt during the great depression and lost its asset backed United States Notes, the papacy have been using their private diplomacy thru their Jesuits at the federal reserve – who can pay anyone, anything they want, by printing obligational debt instruments to enslave souls.
Jesus the Pope in disguise or Jesus from the bible causes a ripple effect in our global society of church being separated from state. This notion separates human beings’ minds from their bodies and leaves the individual in an apostate commercial reality under forced and imposed allegiance/citizenship. As a unified entity (mind and body), our Creator created living souls to populate his planet.
We can all live past these skeptical times to envision pleasant days ahead, where the Pope’s Authoritarian Jurisdictional Globalized Commercial Matrix is revealed to all nation’s and the only destruction will be of all national debts created by federal reserve (Jesuit) contracts or international (Jesuit) agreements with I.M.F., World Bank, etc…
Will any nation ever discharge their national debt under HJR 192 of June 5, 1933? This statutory Act discharges all public and private debt obligations as a statutory expenditure because there is no asset backed currency in globalization; this also exonerates the Jesuits because as they say, ‘ignorance to the law (UDHR) is no excuse for justice’.
Let us live to Resurrect the Universal Declaration for Human Rights by excluding the Holy See for its evil and treacherous actions against the ‘Elect of God’ – Negus Ras Tafari Makonnen’s Sacred Atonement for all of humanity.
They voluntarily reject full membership, which clearly displays unethical international morality; impose worthless federal reserve Jesuit money that causes ceaseless commercial wars around the globe, abominable lecheries – homosexual activities against children in churches, and the Mightiest SIN of all, tampering with the African Holy Scriptures –
‘for surely ever word (UDHR) uttered by His Imperial Majesty shall proceed forth in his Most Prodigal Son’ who will open the doors of commercial hell / economic exploitation and lead the nations in spiritual equality, back to Ethiopia where all indigenous descendants of Adam originated in the garden of Eden, for the re-establishment of asset backed currency using Africa and the Caribbean’s natural resources.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but no guarantee of happiness.
Post a Comment