LifeSiteNews.com

Nelson Mandela’s Group of Global “Elders” a Who’s Who of Pro-Abortion, Pro-Population Control Moveme

LifeSiteNews.com
LifeSiteNews.com

By John Jalsevac

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa, July 20, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - World famous opponent of South African apartheid, Nelson Mandela, celebrated his 89th birthday last Wednesday by announcing the formation of a Global council of elders, known simply as "The Elders."

So far The Elders includes Kofi Annan, Desmond Tutu, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Mary Robinson, Jimmy Carter, Li Zhaoxing, Muhammad Yunus, Ela Bhatt, Graca Machel, and, of course, Nelson Mandela. 

The group of high-profile international leaders is intended to be an independent body of "wise" men and women that will use their combined experience to solve any of the host of problems currently facing the "global village". "The only agenda of The Elders is that of humanity," reads The Elders’ website.

"I see The Elders as a small but independent group that may fill an existing void in the world community," said Elders member, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter. Carter claimed that the group is "almost impervious to the consequences of outside criticism." Members of The Elders cannot currently be in political office, with the intent of creating a non-partisan body.

Nevertheless, while some would debate the notion that the members of the group are ‘non-partisan’ in the first place, what is more certain is that its members are by and large united by a common commitment to radical social liberalism and population control.

The Elders is the brainchild of British entrepreneur Richard Branson, owner of Virgin, and singer Peter Gabriel, who together approached Mandela about the project a number of years ago. According to The Times Online, the pair has already raise £9 million for the group, which will be used for its first three years of operation.

"This group can speak freely and boldly, working both publicly and behind the scenes on whatever actions need to be taken," said Mandela. He continued, outlining The Elders lofty goal: "to support courage where there is fear, foster agreement where there is conflict, and inspire hope where there is despair."

However, with one of the primary figureheads of the group being the Anglican priest Desmond Tutu, who is well known to pro-life and pro-family advocates for his vociferous support of "family planning," including abortion in certain circumstances, and for criticizing the Catholic Church for its teachings on homosexuality and contraception, it is unlikely that The Elders’ agenda will be as innocuous as Mandela’s statement indicates.

"I’m not particularly reassured by that group," said Jim Hughes, president of Campaign Life Coalition, Canada and vice-president of International Right to Life. "Given that almost all of the members of the group are well-known, powerful figures in pro-abortion, pro-population control, pro-everything else circles, I can imagine what sort of ‘wisdom’ they plan on offering the world. Personally, I think the world would be a much better place without that sort of wisdom."  

"The fact that they are touting themselves as the world’s wise men is simply a big joke. I would rather refer to them as the wise-guys. That’s closer to the truth," he said.

  Austin Ruse, the president of C-Fam, a non-profit, non-partisan research and educational institute focusing on international social policy, had similar remarks about The Elders. “Rather than ‘the Elders’, the group should be called the Crotchety Left Wing Gasbags," said Ruse. "I am certain they will only bloviate on radical social policy. Only the hard left could cook up something so cringe-worthy.”

  The group also includes the former head of the World Health Organization, Dr. Gro Bruntland, who, during her stint as Director-General of the WHO pushed for abortion, contraception, and population control under the euphemism of "reproductive health" and women’s health 

  Kofi Annan, another member of The Elders, is one of the world’s foremost defenders of population control, and has long supported same-sex "marriage" and human cloning. At the Cairo+5 sessions in 1999, Annan stated that "since Cairo" the world understands "we have to stabilize the population of this planet…. There is a limit to the pressures our global environment can stand. One form of pressure is the sheer size of the world’s population." Annan’s solution to this "pressure" is the now entrenched agenda of the UN - to pressure countries around the world to allow for abortion and contraception on demand.

  Even more astonishingly, The Elders has welcomed Li Zhaoxing, the former Foreign Minister of communist China, as one of its "wise" men. Zhaoxing was the foreign representative for a country that is known for extensive human rights abuses, including a coercive one-child policy that has resulted in forced abortion and forced sterilizations. In one question and answer session at the Institute for Corean-American Studies, Inc. in 2000, Zhaoxing responded to questions about the one-child policy by stating that it is an admirable policy worthy of emulation elsewhere.

"Generally speaking," said Zhaoxing about the one-child policy, "this policy reflects the interests of the nation and people support it. And we really don’t know why some politicians in this country (America) don’t. I believe if they go to China and see for themselves, they would have a different idea."

  Other Elders include Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland and former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, who, during her tenure at the UN, was one of the most outspoken proponents of homosexuality and abortion under the guise of protection from discrimination based on "sexual orientation" and "reproductive rights." Another member, Graca Machel, Nelson Mandela’s wife, has pushed for universal access to contraception as being an integral part of "women’s health." Nelson Mandela himself also has a pro-abortion record, and has in the past proved himself an advocate of the pro-homosexual movement.

  The Elders have not yet announced the particulars of what, exactly, they plan on doing, but have indicated that they are embarking on a several month-long process of forming an agenda for the group.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

  United Nations Chief Kofi Annan Endorses Human Cloning
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/oct/041021a.html

  U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan Supports Homosexual ‘Marriage’
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/aug/03080501.html

  Kofi Annan Enthusiastically Accepts Award from Radical Abortion Promoters
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/04030403.html

MARY ROBINSON RESIGNS FROM UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS
  http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/mar/02031805.html 

  In 1996, Mandela signed into law one of the world’s most pro-abortion laws
  http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2001/nov/01112003.html

  See the Elders website
  http://www.theelders.org/

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

State Rep who compared Planned Parenthood with ISIS moves to bar dismemberment abortions

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson
Image
State Representative Isaac Latterell, R-Sioux Falls

PIERRE, SD, February 23, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The state representative who said that Planned Parenthood beheads human beings just like ISIS is calling for the state Senate to ban all forms of dismemberment abortion.

“Planned Parenthood is worse than ISIS,” said State Representative Isaac Latterell, R-Sioux Falls said when introducing H.B. 1230, the Preborn Infant Beheading Ban of 2015. The bill would make it a felony for an abortionist to behead an unborn child as part of an abortion procedure within the state limits.

“There are certain revolting methods of execution, such as beheading, that no state would ever permit, even against murderers who use this method on their victims,” Rep. Latterell said.

The House Health and Human Services Committee passed the bill last week by a 11-2 vote.

But not everyone was happy with the bill and the publicity it drew. (The same committee had killed a dismemberment and decapitation abortion ban last year.)

State Rep. Burt Tulson, R-Lake Norden, amended the beheading law to simply read, “The State of South Dakota recognizes the sanctity of human life.”

The full House passed the amended form of his bill by 65-3 on Thursday, February 19.

Rep. Latterell is now asking the state Senate to revise the bill again – to go beyond beheading and bar all forms of dismemberment of the unborn.

“I knew beheading was an abhorrent technique reserved for the likes of ISIS terrorists, but I did not fully appreciate how much pain the fetal dismemberment that takes place during dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortions causes the baby,” Latterell told LifeSiteNews. “I am confident when the Senate committee is finished with its hearing, Planned Parenthood's lies will be exposed. I look forward to banning dismemberment abortion once and for all.”

“Dismemberment abortion kills a baby by tearing her apart limb from limb,” said Daniel Woodard, a Columbus School of Law student who testified for the bill.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Introducing such a bill would put South Dakota in the mainstream of the national pro-life movement. The National Right to Life Committee has made banning dismemberment abortions a national focus. The same day that the South Dakota House passed Latterell's bill, the Kansas state Senate passed the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act.

Other states, including Oklahoma and Missouri, have introduced legislation to end the most common form of second-trimester abortion, as well.

The amended H.B. 1230 had its first reading in the state Senate on Friday.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

, ,

Detaching ‘pastoral practice’ from Catholic doctrine is a ‘dangerous schizophrenic pathology’: Vatican cardinal

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White

ROME, February 23, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Another highly placed Vatican Cardinal has corrected the “progressivist” proposal to offer Holy Communion to Catholics who have been divorced and remarried or who are in other “irregular” sexual unions. The highly respected Cardinal Robert Sarah, recently appointed to the office overseeing the Church’s liturgical practices, says that attempting to detach Catholic teaching from “pastoral practice” is a form of “heresy.”

“The idea that would consist in placing the Magisterium in a nice box by detaching it from pastoral practice – which could evolve according to the circumstances, fads, and passions – is a form of heresy, a dangerous schizophrenic pathology,” Cardinal Sarah said.

“The African Church will strongly oppose any rebellion against the teaching of Jesus and the Magisterium,” he added.

The Guinean cardinal is the prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments, but until recently was serving as the head of Cor Unum, the office overseeing the Church’s charitable activities. In his former job, given by Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Sarah was spearheading efforts at reforming the umbrella organization, Caritas Internationalis, as it brought its policies into line with Catholic moral teaching, particularly on contraception and abortion.

The cardinal made the remarks in a book of interviews to be published this week by the French language press, Fayard. Titled “Dieu ou rien” (God or Nothing), the book is described as “frank personal thoughts” on the cardinal’s life, including on “the ideological neo-colonialism in Africa exercised by the decadent West.”

On the various crises of the African continent, he said, “I want to strongly condemn a desire to impose false values ​​using political and financial arguments.” 

He said that in some African countries, “ministries dedicated to gender theory” have been created in order to legitimize the ideology. “These policies are all the more hideous inasmuch as the majority of the African population is defenseless, thanks to the fanatical Western ideologues,” Cardinal Sarah said. 

In the book the cardinal also addresses euthanasia, calling it “the most acute marker of a society without God,” and “subhuman.” But he adds that he has seen an “awakening of consciences,” particularly among younger people in North America who want to overcome “the culture of death.” 

“God was not asleep, he is really with those who defend life!”

Since the “suggestion” on Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, made at last year’s consistory, and pushed hard at the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in October, by the German Walter Cardinal Kasper and his followers, the Catholic Church is increasingly being shown to be deeply divided at the highest levels and on some of the Church’s most fundamental and definitive issues. While it was frequently commented that the African bishops were on the whole strongly opposed to the Kasper Proposal, the West’s view of the “African Church” as a conservative monolith has been refuted. At least one African bishop has indicated that he outright supports Kasper’s proposal, repeating much of the rhetoric of the Kasper supporters in and out of the Vatican.

Gabriel Palmer Buckle, the archbishop of Accra in Ghana, and one of the bishops chosen to attend the next Synod in October, is quoted by long-time American Vaticanist John Allen saying that he is ready “to vote yes” on allowing divorced and civilly remarried Catholics receive Communion.

John Allen wrote that the Ghanian archbishop “supports allowing local bishops to make those decisions on a case-by-case basis, and also believes that’s the result Pope Francis wants from the October summit.”

“When a person comes to me, I think I should be able to sit with him or her, or with the family, to find out what the situation is and to give solutions to individual cases without making a sweeping statement,” Palmer-Buckle said.

“It’s not a matter of issuing a new law,” he said. “As for the doctrine [on marriage], I don’t think the Church will change. It’s a question of how we help individuals.”

He added also that the “case-by-case” approach is favored by Pope Francis. “The truth of the matter is that the Holy Father is pushing towards that, when he talks about collegiality,” he said.

The archbishop echoed the phrases and jargon – such as the invocation of “gradualism” and “accompaniment” – used by both the Vatican and Kasper’s supporters during and immediately following the 2014 Synod.

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

“The Holy Father has made it clear that the Church’s doctrine [that marriage is always indissoluble] remains the perfection point, the point of arrival, but we are all wounded,” Palmer-Buckle said. “That’s why Christ came, for the sick, the wounded, the needy.”

“If we look at our own pastoral challenges, there must be room to listen and to see how we can pastorally accompany whoever wants to belong more and more to Christ.”

He also reiterated Kasper’s own statement that the proposal is not intended to change Church teaching: “It’s not a matter of issuing a new law…As for the doctrine [on marriage], I don’t think the Church will change. It’s a question of how we help individuals.”

Others have strongly refuted this thesis, including high-level cardinals, who have said that a change in the practice would simply make the doctrine irrelevant to most Catholics.

With the next session of the Synod still eight months in the future, the sides in the argument are rapidly forming. A few days ago, US Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin, joined the growing chorus of opposition, saying, “Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral and we cannot carry out something else and call it pastoral, if it doesn’t embody the truth.”

“Certain doctrines are embodied in certain practices and even if you don’t change the doctrine in writing, in a written document, if you change the practice you have changed what the previous practice embodied.”

In January, another Vatican curial official, Cardinal Mauro Piacenza, gave a lecture in Germany strongly refuting the underlying theory of the Kasper Proposal. With Cardinal Sarah, Piacenza explained that it is incoherent to suggest that the Church’s “pastoral practice” could possibly be placed in opposition to her doctrine.

Speaking to a group of priests and seminarians, Cardinal Piacenza said, “When in Christianity mercy and truth are presented as antagonistic, or at least as contradictory, it is always the result of a partial perception.”

“It is hardly conceivable that there could be such a strong emphasis on mercy to the detriment of truth. Or, its opposite, a strong emphasis on truth to the detriment of mercy.”

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Eric Metaxas

, , ,

What Uncle Sam giveth, he can taketh away: Our rights are from God, not government

Eric Metaxas
By Eric Metaxas

February 23, 2015 (BreakPoint.org) -- During a recent appearance on CNN, Roy Moore, the chief judge of Alabama’s Supreme Court, debated the issue of same-sex marriage with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, the son of the late New York governor Mario Cuomo and the brother of New York’s current governor, Andrew Cuomo.

During the discussion, Moore said that “Our rights, contained in the Bill of Rights, do not come from the Constitution. They come from God. That’s clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence.” Cuomo then responded “Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man.”

Cuomo added that the idea of God-given rights is “your faith [and] my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”

I can’t help but wonder which country Cuomo is referring to. After all, the Declaration of Independence, by way of justifying the enormous steps the Founding Fathers were about to take, states “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . .”

These words, which previous generations of American school children were made to memorize, set forth an order that is 180 degrees from that suggested by Cuomo: first comes the Creator, who then endows his creatures with “certain unalienable rights,” and then the creatures form governments to “secure those rights.”

In essence, Cuomo is resorting to a kind of legal positivism, that is, the idea that “law is a matter of what has been posited,” something “ordered, decided, practiced, [or] tolerated,” and is not based on any deeper truth.

But that approach has serious flaws—as our own history bears out. In the run-up to the Civil War, for example, defenders of slavery appealed to the text of the Constitution, which permitted slavery without mentioning it by name. Opponents of slavery, or at least those against its spread into the territories, such as Lincoln, appealed to the Declaration of Independence and its ideas about God-given rights.

Sticking to man-given rights and appealing to “collective agreement and compromise” as Cuomo insists upon doing, would not have ended slavery.

However, if our nation’s leaders agree with Cuomo that the rights we possess are those the government has deined to give us, that would go a long way to explaining the erosion of religious liberty we are witnessing in the U. S. After all, the same government that can create a right to abortion and same-sex marriage can also take away the rights of freedom of religion and freedom of association. This may yield the results folks like Cuomo want, but it undermines the very foundation of human rights that we all claim to hold dear.

And that is really what’s at stake. Years ago on this program, Chuck Colson said that human rights are “based on our most fundamental beliefs about humans being created in the image of God.” Our “rights are not conferred by government, and so they cannot be denied by government.” It was this belief that led Chuck to draft the Manhattan Declaration in defense of human life, marriage, and religious freedom.

More than half a million Americans have signed the Manhattan Declaration. So if you have not, or if you haven’t even read this vitally important defense of our rights and freedom, please come to BreakPoint.org, click on this commentary, and I’ll link you to it.

Chris Cuomo was right about one thing: God-given rights are what our faith teaches. If that’s no longer true about “our country,” Heaven help us all.

Reprinted with permission from Break Point. 

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook