Anti-Catholic Ted Turner Who Mocked Pope JPII Given UN Peace Award
NEW YORK, April 21, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ted Turner, one of the world’s richest men and most overtly anti-Catholic promoters of eugenic population control, has been honored with a prestigious award by the United Nations on the day following the papal election. The 2005 Alan Cranston Peace Award was presented on behalf of the Global Security Institute (GSI) by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.
Turner has a long history of making anti-Catholic and anti-papal insults. On February 16, 1999 Ted Turner made anti-Catholic and anti-Polish remarks before the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association in Washington, D.C. that were obviously meant as an insult to the late Pope John Paul II. He ridiculed the Ten Commandments saying, “they’re a little out of date.” He said, “If you’re only going to have 10 rules, I don’t know if prohibiting adultery should be one of them.” He then directly mocked the Pope when asked to comment what he would say if he met the Pope. Turner lifted his leg and said, “Ever seen a Polish mine detector?” In a reference to John Paul’s defence of traditional morality, he said the Pope should “get with it. Welcome to the 20th century.”
The UN’s press release says Turner is being honored for, among other merits, his work advocating “sustainable development.” Long-time watchers of the UN will know that the international body’s most important export is linguistic manipulation and euphemisms. In UN-speak, ‘sustainable development’ is closely linked to the drastic reduction of human population in developing countries, particularly in Africa.
Newly elected Pope Benedict XVI, writing in the Italian newspaper Avvenire in 2000 slammed the UN’s proposals for a “New World Order” targeting for special criticism the UN’s goal of depopulation. He noted that the philosophy coming from recent UN conferences and the Millennium Summit “proposes strategies to reduce the number of guests at the table of humanity, so that the presumed happiness [we] have attained will not be affected.” He criticized this philosophy for “not being concerned with the care of those who are no longer productive or who can no longer hope for a determined quality of life.”