Because The Un

[JasonJ]

Making a million churches in China would take 100s of years if it was ever to happen. So as a means for practical action, its not an option. The desired affect wouldn't be guarenteed anyway even if still an improvement over the CCP rule.

[Rick]

And how would you deal with people that (as Kanye would put it) dont believe in anything?The Chinese Government have no belief other than in the primacy of the Communist Party. How then can any church reconcile itself to dealing with something that is at best agnosticism, or at worst outright athiesm? It just doesnt work. Better by far we all practice that method in foreign relations, then there is a relatively common bedrock of dealing with relations.

I dont think any confederation of churches is going to get far ignoring 1.4 billion people. Would that we could of course, but if China hasnt gone anywhere in about 4000 years, its probably in for the long haul im guessing.

By your works you treat believers and non-believers alike. You may not have been blessed as Billy Graham or Mother Teresa was, but individual Christians together can change the world for the better. Not perfect mind you for when people are involved nothing is perfect. The world via secular liberalism is a cancer and the only cure is Jesus Christ. The gift of Jesus is that, a gift. You are the one who has the obligation to accept or not.

A push back by all churches against the evil of liberalism, especially in education, would go far to make the world more right. You will not see it on the liberal news, but many Christian groups are doing their job in making the world a better place. A good example is Alcoholics Anonymous. Chuck Colson is a good example of prison reform.

[Rick]

Making a million churches in China would take 100s of years if it was ever to happen. So as a means for practical action, its not an option. The desired affect wouldn't be guarenteed anyway even if still an improvement over the CCP rule.

Matthew 18:18-19.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

And how would you deal with people that (as Kanye would put it) dont believe in anything?The Chinese Government have no belief other than in the primacy of the Communist Party. How then can any church reconcile itself to dealing with something that is at best agnosticism, or at worst outright athiesm? It just doesnt work. Better by far we all practice that method in foreign relations, then there is a relatively common bedrock of dealing with relations.

I dont think any confederation of churches is going to get far ignoring 1.4 billion people. Would that we could of course, but if China hasnt gone anywhere in about 4000 years, its probably in for the long haul im guessing.

By your works you treat believers and non-believers alike. You may not have been blessed as Billy Graham or Mother Teresa was, but individual Christians together can change the world for the better. Not perfect mind you for when people are involved nothing is perfect. The world via secular liberalism is a cancer and the only cure is Jesus Christ. The gift of Jesus is that, a gift. You are the one who has the obligation to accept or not.

A push back by all churches against the evil of liberalism, especially in education, would go far to make the world more right. You will not see it on the liberal news, but many Christian groups are doing their job in making the world a better place. A good example is Alcoholics Anonymous. Chuck Colson is a good example of prison reform.

 

And still you cant reconcile to the idea, how do you believe in people who are wholly absent from any Christian or any moral feeling whatsoever? Try sending a Bishop or the Pope to North Korea and see how well it works.

 

Liberalism isnt an evil. The evil is the sweeping tide of populism and the inability to reconcile well known facts due to denial, a fact to my distress ive seen far too often on this grate site over the last 10 years.Liberalism is the reverse of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Its the opposite of everything we have been fighting against since 1939. You kick that pillar over, the whole roof of western liberal democracy is coming down.

 

Vladimir Putin is cheering the end of Liberal Democracy. Why do you suppose that is Rick? Its not because he believes we can do better, I assure you of that.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Making a million churches in China would take 100s of years if it was ever to happen. So as a means for practical action, its not an option. The desired affect wouldn't be guarenteed anyway even if still an improvement over the CCP rule.

There is as I understand it, a strand of Catholicism that popular in China. Its done absolutely nothing to moderate the PRC's policies, and cant. Because even if it moderates the peoples opinion, they arent the ones in power.

[JasonJ]

 

Making a million churches in China would take 100s of years if it was ever to happen. So as a means for practical action, its not an option. The desired affect wouldn't be guarenteed anyway even if still an improvement over the CCP rule.

 

There is as I understand it, a strand of Catholicism that popular in China. Its done absolutely nothing to moderate the PRC's policies, and cant. Because even if it moderates the peoples opinion, they arent the ones in power.

Yeah, and they got their crosses torn down and conditions to satisfy CCP requirements implemented. It is efforts by those like Liu Xiaobo that grant a better chance for christanity to achieve greater prevelance in China. But how many Christains can recognize his name?

Edited June 22, 2020 by JasonJ

[JasonJ]

 

Making a million churches in China would take 100s of years if it was ever to happen. So as a means for practical action, its not an option. The desired affect wouldn't be guarenteed anyway even if still an improvement over the CCP rule.

 

Matthew 18:18-19.

Blind faith worked for Indiana Jones but that was a movie.

 

heheheh

 

:phear:

[RETAC21]

 

 

And how would you deal with people that (as Kanye would put it) dont believe in anything?The Chinese Government have no belief other than in the primacy of the Communist Party. How then can any church reconcile itself to dealing with something that is at best agnosticism, or at worst outright athiesm? It just doesnt work. Better by far we all practice that method in foreign relations, then there is a relatively common bedrock of dealing with relations.

I dont think any confederation of churches is going to get far ignoring 1.4 billion people. Would that we could of course, but if China hasnt gone anywhere in about 4000 years, its probably in for the long haul im guessing.

By your works you treat believers and non-believers alike. You may not have been blessed as Billy Graham or Mother Teresa was, but individual Christians together can change the world for the better. Not perfect mind you for when people are involved nothing is perfect. The world via secular liberalism is a cancer and the only cure is Jesus Christ. The gift of Jesus is that, a gift. You are the one who has the obligation to accept or not.

A push back by all churches against the evil of liberalism, especially in education, would go far to make the world more right. You will not see it on the liberal news, but many Christian groups are doing their job in making the world a better place. A good example is Alcoholics Anonymous. Chuck Colson is a good example of prison reform.

 

And still you cant reconcile to the idea, how do you believe in people who are wholly absent from any Christian or any moral feeling whatsoever? Try sending a Bishop or the Pope to North Korea and see how well it works.

 

 

 

"Kill them. For the Lord knows those that are His own."

 

 

That one, by the way, was christians against christians...

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

 

And how would you deal with people that (as Kanye would put it) dont believe in anything?The Chinese Government have no belief other than in the primacy of the Communist Party. How then can any church reconcile itself to dealing with something that is at best agnosticism, or at worst outright athiesm? It just doesnt work. Better by far we all practice that method in foreign relations, then there is a relatively common bedrock of dealing with relations.

I dont think any confederation of churches is going to get far ignoring 1.4 billion people. Would that we could of course, but if China hasnt gone anywhere in about 4000 years, its probably in for the long haul im guessing.

By your works you treat believers and non-believers alike. You may not have been blessed as Billy Graham or Mother Teresa was, but individual Christians together can change the world for the better. Not perfect mind you for when people are involved nothing is perfect. The world via secular liberalism is a cancer and the only cure is Jesus Christ. The gift of Jesus is that, a gift. You are the one who has the obligation to accept or not.

A push back by all churches against the evil of liberalism, especially in education, would go far to make the world more right. You will not see it on the liberal news, but many Christian groups are doing their job in making the world a better place. A good example is Alcoholics Anonymous. Chuck Colson is a good example of prison reform.

 

And still you cant reconcile to the idea, how do you believe in people who are wholly absent from any Christian or any moral feeling whatsoever? Try sending a Bishop or the Pope to North Korea and see how well it works.

 

 

 

"Kill them. For the Lord knows those that are His own."

 

 

That one, by the way, was christians against christians...

 

Yeah, but you will want a LOT of Christians to matchup one for one with the Chicoms, wont you?

 

Its not that I dont respect Christians for their beliefs, I do. Ive just seen what kind of effect politics mixing with religion can have in my own country. Its hardly as if its been any greater a success in the middle east.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[Ssnake]

I respect religion and personal belief. I have a hard time extending that belief to the clergy. Historically they were just as feuding and non-cooperative as nation states, these days I see them mostly as morally bankrupt, or spineless religio-bureaucrats who are mostly preoccupied with administrating thelselves.

 

The idea that the world churches could replace the UN and that it would end well is, frankly, staggeringly naive (if not absurd).

[Jeff]

Maybe the UN are a failure, like the League of Nations before it. But eff me, I know no better alternative. Abandoning it won't make the problems go away. The UN gives the US a lot of leverage to influence things by non-military means. Throw it away and you are still going to be challenged on more fronts than you can handle. Going fully Isolationist is going to bite you eventually. You can take down with you all your allies and then bask in a well-deserved "told you so" which may be emotionally satisfying, but it's not going to solve a single problem.

 

Then what?

 

That's why I say reduce our dues to a token $1 and use our veto to keep some of the worst BS from getting by.

[Nobu]

With the cost of real estate these days, a Victorian-era public toilet in London might sell for millions. Fixing the UN could bring a similar return one day.

 

Historically, I think China and Chinese may have had a taste of mass religion's benefits about 170 years ago, and are wary of a repeat experience.

[Rick]

 

 

And how would you deal with people that (as Kanye would put it) dont believe in anything?The Chinese Government have no belief other than in the primacy of the Communist Party. How then can any church reconcile itself to dealing with something that is at best agnosticism, or at worst outright athiesm? It just doesnt work. Better by far we all practice that method in foreign relations, then there is a relatively common bedrock of dealing with relations.

I dont think any confederation of churches is going to get far ignoring 1.4 billion people. Would that we could of course, but if China hasnt gone anywhere in about 4000 years, its probably in for the long haul im guessing.

By your works you treat believers and non-believers alike. You may not have been blessed as Billy Graham or Mother Teresa was, but individual Christians together can change the world for the better. Not perfect mind you for when people are involved nothing is perfect. The world via secular liberalism is a cancer and the only cure is Jesus Christ. The gift of Jesus is that, a gift. You are the one who has the obligation to accept or not.

A push back by all churches against the evil of liberalism, especially in education, would go far to make the world more right. You will not see it on the liberal news, but many Christian groups are doing their job in making the world a better place. A good example is Alcoholics Anonymous. Chuck Colson is a good example of prison reform.

 

And still you cant reconcile to the idea, how do you believe in people who are wholly absent from any Christian or any moral feeling whatsoever? Try sending a Bishop or the Pope to North Korea and see how well it works.

 

Spend time reading how Chuck Colson did what is in red above. Google "How Jesus Changed my Life."

 

Liberalism isnt an evil. Today's liberalism is! Remember, I use U.S. terminology for liberalism. What you are discussing below is defined as "Classical Liberalism." It no longer exists in the U.S. except among Conservatives.

 

The evil is the sweeping tide of populism and the inability to reconcile well known facts due to denial, a fact to my distress ive seen far too often on this grate site over the last 10 years.Liberalism is the reverse of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Its the opposite of everything we have been fighting against since 1939. You kick that pillar over, the whole roof of western liberal democracy is coming down.

 

Vladimir Putin is cheering the end of Liberal Democracy. Why do you suppose that is Rick? Don't know. The problem for the U.S. is not V. Putin. THE problem is today's liberal!

 

Its not because he believes we can do better, I assure you of that.

 

[lucklucky]

 

 

And how would you deal with people that (as Kanye would put it) dont believe in anything?The Chinese Government have no belief other than in the primacy of the Communist Party. How then can any church reconcile itself to dealing with something that is at best agnosticism, or at worst outright athiesm? It just doesnt work. Better by far we all practice that method in foreign relations, then there is a relatively common bedrock of dealing with relations.

I dont think any confederation of churches is going to get far ignoring 1.4 billion people. Would that we could of course, but if China hasnt gone anywhere in about 4000 years, its probably in for the long haul im guessing.

By your works you treat believers and non-believers alike. You may not have been blessed as Billy Graham or Mother Teresa was, but individual Christians together can change the world for the better. Not perfect mind you for when people are involved nothing is perfect. The world via secular liberalism is a cancer and the only cure is Jesus Christ. The gift of Jesus is that, a gift. You are the one who has the obligation to accept or not.

A push back by all churches against the evil of liberalism, especially in education, would go far to make the world more right. You will not see it on the liberal news, but many Christian groups are doing their job in making the world a better place. A good example is Alcoholics Anonymous. Chuck Colson is a good example of prison reform.

 

And still you cant reconcile to the idea, how do you believe in people who are wholly absent from any Christian or any moral feeling whatsoever? Try sending a Bishop or the Pope to North Korea and see how well it works.

 

Liberalism isnt an evil. The evil is the sweeping tide of populism and the inability to reconcile well known facts due to denial, a fact to my distress ive seen far too often on this grate site over the last 10 years.Liberalism is the reverse of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Its the opposite of everything we have been fighting against since 1939. You kick that pillar over, the whole roof of western liberal democracy is coming down.

 

Vladimir Putin is cheering the end of Liberal Democracy. Why do you suppose that is Rick? Its not because he believes we can do better, I assure you of that.

 

Haha, you have shown to hate liberal democracy.

For example what you think will happened if Hillary had won, or if Biden wins? There is a Regime Change in western world. Liberal Democracy already ended while ago when Academia fell to the Marxists.

 

The "others" will be only allowed to exist only as a token to Left in power to present themselves as Democrats The right might even win an election - like Boris - but will not be allowed/want to follow what they were elected for.

 

Expect for when your ISP tells you have to sign a leftist leaflet in the contract, or your electricity / water provider tells you the same. You will be ordered to be a progressive. NO is not allowed.

[Rick]

I respect religion and personal belief. I have a hard time extending that belief to the clergy. Historically they were just as feuding and non-cooperative as nation states, these days I see them mostly as morally bankrupt, or spineless religio-bureaucrats who are mostly preoccupied with administrating thelselves.

 

The idea that the world churches could replace the UN and that it would end well is, frankly, staggeringly naive (if not absurd).

I can see where you are coming from and for far to many times you would be correct. Here is my question to you, has the secular state done any better for morality and culture than the church?

In regard to your last sentence, why not the church? There is no U.N. of churches, thank God, though there are "world h.q." of different denominations. Look around you and you will see different churches joining together to work at housing repair, food donations, medical care, etc.

[Nobu]

The question is, which church.

 

Scientology would love to open millions of **cough** churches in China, if Okawa's Happy Science fruitloops do not get there first.

[Colin]

I used a crude analogy a long ago about public toilets in the UK. Around the time of the financial crash, the Government cut the funding to local councils, who then suddenly short of funds, figured they may as well shut public toilets, some of them long established edifices since the victorian period, to save money. Some of them even were converted into houses (Can you imagine living in that? Well at least the plumbing is already done for you...) Well, the inevitable happened. People were caught short coming out of pubs, and they were urinating in the street.

 

The UN is like that. Its nasty and smelly inside, nobody spends the upkeep on it when it does. But get rid of it, everyone is going to be urinating in the street again.

 

OK, so its an appalling analogy, but you get my point. Somehow, I dont think we are going to be satisfied by handling all our global security and healthcare infrastructure over to China. That is less showing independence than capitulating to forces that mean us ill.

 

Its funny to me that the first thing Americans did after gaining independence was build alliances. Clearly the founding fathers knew something modern politicians didnt.

Not a bad analogue. I would say the most important aspect of the UN is the ability for diplomats to meet in unofficial meetings and sidebar conversations to pass messages, assurances or concerns along. All happening outside the light so various groups don't get bent out of shape for talking to the "enemy". The other benefit will be a bunch of small lesser known programs that people rarely hear about or care. Like seed exchanges, clean water access. Boring stuff the big players don't care about.

[Ssnake]

 

I respect religion and personal belief. I have a hard time extending that belief to the clergy. Historically they were just as feuding and non-cooperative as nation states, these days I see them mostly as morally bankrupt, or spineless religio-bureaucrats who are mostly preoccupied with administrating thelselves.

 

Has the secular state done any better for morality and culture than the church?

 

"Which" morality, "which" state, and "how secular".

I don't think we can discuss this in the abstract.

 

Is Germany post 1945 a secular state?

If so, I think all in all it at least hasn't done much worse than the better examples of churches. There were horrid examples of child abuse under state supervision, but at least there's now willingness to clean up and investigate, unlike what I'm seeing with, day, the RCC. Can't see that Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims get along with each other all that well in India and surrounding countries. I shudder to think what would happen if you let the Sunni and Shia clergy duke it out on a global scale, and they're both muslim. Serbian Orthodox and Russian Orthodox split because they can't agree if crossing oneself should go left to right or right to left. America was founded by the British taleban of their time, sectarian, church-demolishing iconoclasts whose parallel society just couldn't get along with the rest of the country. They weren't persecuted for their beliefs. They aggressively attacked who didn't share their narrow-minded interpretation of the Bible, and had to be kicked out of Britain before they would kill more people. And then in America these super-moral proselytists imported slaves, and because they couldn't get along with each other, spread out to found all kinds of more or less bizarre Christian communes with more or less oppressive rules.

 

Have churches also done good?

Absolutely. Don't get me wrong here.

 

But the idea that the clergy is inherently better suited to organize public life than, say, elected politicians finds no supporting evidence in history. I like my Republic, because I can get rid of dangerously useless dolts, and replace them with the next useless dolt who is probably less dangerous. That doesn't protect us against the general fallacies of man, but the clergy is made of people too, with additional drawback of a lack of oversight and public scrutiny.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

 

And how would you deal with people that (as Kanye would put it) dont believe in anything?The Chinese Government have no belief other than in the primacy of the Communist Party. How then can any church reconcile itself to dealing with something that is at best agnosticism, or at worst outright athiesm? It just doesnt work. Better by far we all practice that method in foreign relations, then there is a relatively common bedrock of dealing with relations.

I dont think any confederation of churches is going to get far ignoring 1.4 billion people. Would that we could of course, but if China hasnt gone anywhere in about 4000 years, its probably in for the long haul im guessing.

By your works you treat believers and non-believers alike. You may not have been blessed as Billy Graham or Mother Teresa was, but individual Christians together can change the world for the better. Not perfect mind you for when people are involved nothing is perfect. The world via secular liberalism is a cancer and the only cure is Jesus Christ. The gift of Jesus is that, a gift. You are the one who has the obligation to accept or not.

A push back by all churches against the evil of liberalism, especially in education, would go far to make the world more right. You will not see it on the liberal news, but many Christian groups are doing their job in making the world a better place. A good example is Alcoholics Anonymous. Chuck Colson is a good example of prison reform.

 

And still you cant reconcile to the idea, how do you believe in people who are wholly absent from any Christian or any moral feeling whatsoever? Try sending a Bishop or the Pope to North Korea and see how well it works.

 

Liberalism isnt an evil. The evil is the sweeping tide of populism and the inability to reconcile well known facts due to denial, a fact to my distress ive seen far too often on this grate site over the last 10 years.Liberalism is the reverse of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Its the opposite of everything we have been fighting against since 1939. You kick that pillar over, the whole roof of western liberal democracy is coming down.

 

Vladimir Putin is cheering the end of Liberal Democracy. Why do you suppose that is Rick? Its not because he believes we can do better, I assure you of that.

 

Haha, you have shown to hate liberal democracy.

For example what you think will happened if Hillary had won, or if Biden wins? There is a Regime Change in western world. Liberal Democracy already ended while ago when Academia fell to the Marxists.

 

The "others" will be only allowed to exist only as a token to Left in power to present themselves as Democrats The right might even win an election - like Boris - but will not be allowed/want to follow what they were elected for.

 

Expect for when your ISP tells you have to sign a leftist leaflet in the contract, or your electricity / water provider tells you the same. You will be ordered to be a progressive. NO is not allowed.

 

Hillary looking back couldnt have won. Why? Because she has absolutely no charisma whatsoever. For all her undoubted skills (and that is one smart lady whether you like her or not), she was about as charismatic as a tub of lard. Can you imagine someone like Winston Churchill winning an election today? I cant. Because its the obsession with how someone looks, sounds, their presentation, their charisma, they cute wife and nice house. Right down the list, and I mean right down there at the bottom, the consideration is 'Is he going to be the right man or woman to run the country?'. And that question is usually answered by all the other tick boxes on the list. Its the same way we pick a hamburger out the supermarket without considering where its been or if its good for us. Its how it makes us feel, that is the important consideration.

 

Trump won because he was more charismatic than Hillary. Did he have any knowledge of Government? Nope. Did he understand international relations? Nope. Did he really, when you stop to think about it, have any substantive answers to any questions at all? Nope. He didnt need to. He looked good in a suit, was charismatic, and appealed to people. That all it needs, appeal.

 

This is not a new problem. I was reading some time ago the first act of Coriolanus, where the crowd ask him to bear his wounds to see his service, and Coriolanus declines, and is hence rejected. Thats populism in action, it spurns the most deserving, the most intelligent and frankly the best candidate for the one that appeals.

 

Liberal Democracy is not the same as populism. If we always went on the side of populism then Oswald Mosley would have been PM at the start of WW2, and we wouldn't have Democracy, liberal or otherwise. But of course, thats before Kennedy style presentationism started bending politics all out of shape. Churchill wouldnt win now, thats why Politics is choc full of bottom feeders with smartarse comments and soundbites, and absolutely no ideas.

 

For the record, much as I loathe Trump (and I do loathe him, make no mistake about that), and much as I like Biden, as I said before Biden strikes me as approaching Brezhnev Mk2. Who do you think would have won a Brezhnev vs Putin matchup? Its just that kind of election now. Its not that Trump is any good, is just whether you think Biden can be any worse. Although personally I regret a Tub of Lard isnt in the lineup, because I feel sure it would clean up.

 

Academia fell to the Marxists? is the current buzzword to justify not listening to Scientists and experts?

Edited June 23, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

I used a crude analogy a long ago about public toilets in the UK. Around the time of the financial crash, the Government cut the funding to local councils, who then suddenly short of funds, figured they may as well shut public toilets, some of them long established edifices since the victorian period, to save money. Some of them even were converted into houses (Can you imagine living in that? Well at least the plumbing is already done for you...) Well, the inevitable happened. People were caught short coming out of pubs, and they were urinating in the street.

 

The UN is like that. Its nasty and smelly inside, nobody spends the upkeep on it when it does. But get rid of it, everyone is going to be urinating in the street again.

 

OK, so its an appalling analogy, but you get my point. Somehow, I dont think we are going to be satisfied by handling all our global security and healthcare infrastructure over to China. That is less showing independence than capitulating to forces that mean us ill.

 

Its funny to me that the first thing Americans did after gaining independence was build alliances. Clearly the founding fathers knew something modern politicians didnt.

Not a bad analogue. I would say the most important aspect of the UN is the ability for diplomats to meet in unofficial meetings and sidebar conversations to pass messages, assurances or concerns along. All happening outside the light so various groups don't get bent out of shape for talking to the "enemy". The other benefit will be a bunch of small lesser known programs that people rarely hear about or care. Like seed exchanges, clean water access. Boring stuff the big players don't care about.

 

Thanks. Its crude, but nobody pretends the UN isnt either.

 

Its like the London Club scene, the politics of Empire were thrashed out over drinks in a fashionable gentlemans club. The UN fulfills that role quite well I would guess.

 

The question is, which church.

 

Scientology would love to open millions of **cough** churches in China, if Okawa's Happy Science fruitloops do not get there first.

Im terrified of Scientology ever going into politics. Imagine if they backed Tom Cruise to run? I get nightmares about that....

[Murph]

Name one thing that the UN does well. Name one reason why the US should pay 22-25% of this parasites budget. The UN is useless, get rid of it.

[RETAC21]

Name one thing that the UN does well. Name one reason why the US should pay 22-25% of this parasites budget. The UN is useless, get rid of it.

 

https://www.who.int/immunization/global_vaccine_action_plan/en/

 

86%86% of infants worldwide vaccinated with 3 doses of DTP vaccine in 2018

 

https://www.who.int/immunization/research/en/

 

https://www.un.org/en/sections/what-we-do/uphold-international-law/index.html

 

https://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm

 

Unless you prefer to duke it out bilaterally in wars and such, of course...

[Murph]

 

Name one thing that the UN does well. Name one reason why the US should pay 22-25% of this parasites budget. The UN is useless, get rid of it.

 

https://www.who.int/immunization/global_vaccine_action_plan/en/

 

86%86% of infants worldwide vaccinated with 3 doses of DTP vaccine in 2018

 

https://www.who.int/immunization/research/en/

 

https://www.un.org/en/sections/what-we-do/uphold-international-law/index.html

 

https://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm

 

Unless you prefer to duke it out bilaterally in wars and such, of course...

 

Did it really? Or is this just more WHO Chinese propaganda? If true, then you are right, however after the Wuhan Virus issues, I do not trust anything the UN/WHO says or claims. The UNs negatives far, far outweigh its minor positives.

[Murph]

UN comes out in favor of the communist ANTIFA:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTOfmY0MmSA

[Jeff]

 

Name one thing that the UN does well. Name one reason why the US should pay 22-25% of this parasites budget. The UN is useless, get rid of it.

 

https://www.who.int/immunization/global_vaccine_action_plan/en/

 

86%86% of infants worldwide vaccinated with 3 doses of DTP vaccine in 2018

 

https://www.who.int/immunization/research/en/

 

https://www.un.org/en/sections/what-we-do/uphold-international-law/index.html

 

https://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm

 

Unless you prefer to duke it out bilaterally in wars and such, of course...

 

 

Why can't some of these programs stand on their own merit and junk the 100 layers of corrupt UN bureaucracy above them? The UN is a jobs and graft program for corrupt bureaucrats, most of them from totalitarian nations.