Hugo

Secularism and humanism have given us the Reign of Terror, the Third Reich, the Cultural Revolution, Fascism, Stalinism, Communism/Marxism, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il and so forth. The Crusades and the Inquisition were mere pinpricks compared to the brutal bloodbaths unleashed by these historical forces, nor were they in keeping with the faith that spawned them. It just doesn't make sense to blame religion for the problems of the world with the evidence available. When one examines the basic tenets of the major religions it seems obvious that they should act as a brake on the worse aspects of human nature and as a promoter of good, and therefore, they are laudable.

This is absolutely not an answer of any kind. You have elected to pass up the facts, in favour of a viewpoint that cannot distinguish between "tolerance" and "endorsement", that basically amounts to "favour those with the richest/loudest lobby groups". Good answer. I'll expect to see you decrying the plight of "oppressed" boy-lovers when their movement gains more momentum too - clearly you are gullible enough to do so.

That is simply a lie, as you'll remember if you take a look at the statistics I posted in another thread. Potential is not reality. Gays are theoretically as loving and monogamous as straight people, but actual studies of their relationships tell a completely different story, and it's one of absolutely nonexistent commitment and fidelity, lists of sexual partners more populous than some towns out West, vastly increased incidences of STDs with consequently far shorter life expectancies, and so on. As regards raising children, the evidence (especially given studies on the psychological history of homosexuals themselves) indicates it is almost certainly psychologically damaging for the child involved. They may pay taxes, but they certainly don't fit into the tax/benefit system in the way that people were intended to. My point with the blind drivers is that it is not a fundamental human right to belong to any group or institution you feel like and demand that all their requirements be stricken down to accomodate you. Life is full of institutions that certain people can't belong to, and not just for practical reasons as you seem to think. Zoroastrians do not accept converts, no matter how piously Zoroastrian they may be. Only Christians can become Freemasons. You can only call yourself Cockney if you were born within the sound of the Bow Bells, no matter how long you've lived in the East End of London. No immigrant, no matter how "naturalised", may be President of the United States. Only a mafioso who can trace his unbroken lineage back to Sicily can be a made man. Only Communist Party members can be officers in the People's Army of China. These "discriminations" run all through human history, and span borders and cultures. People just have to live with these things! Life is not an all-you-can-eat buffet, and you cannot just stuff yourself with whatever you want to eat without responsibility or accountability, and homosexuals have to grow up and realise this. Regarding the pervasiveness of sex in our culture, well, gays may not be responsible for the problem in the first place but they are definitely making it a lot worse. Witness, as I said, Gay Pride, the attacks on public decency laws and the "too-high" age of consent by gay rights activists. Quick scenario: you are out at a family restaurant with your wife and kids. You take your 10-year-old to the bathroom and find two gay men sodomising each other over the counter. While you are paying your bill later, you see one of the same men taking your 10-year-old son aside and making sexual advances towards him. If the gay rights groups I mentioned have their way, all of this would be perfectly legal and you would have no recourse against any of it. Xtra.ca article Click on the petition and see exactly what they want to repeal. Sound good to you? Nice sort of society to live in?

I can't speak for Craig, but I myself have six homosexual friends. This doesn't alter my position on homosexuality because that position does not entail imposition of my morals on the private activites of homosexuals. None of my homosexual friends do anything offensive in public. Two of them wouldn't even be readily identifiable as gay. This is all fine with me. Let's look at something, though. When you watch TV, or a movie, that has gay characters, how often do you see them actually having sex or foreplay? How about even kissing? How often do you see Will from "Will and Grace" french-kissing his boyfriend? Almost ever. When it happens, it's a sensation people talk about for weeks. However, the same media are absolutely overflowing with heterosexual kisses, foreplay, sex, you name it. 97% of the populace is straight. While homosexuals may not disgust them, homosexual behaviour does. That's why depictions of homosexual acts are so rare. Those who have seen the Gay Pride parade in Toronto will know that it is a very sordid and degrading spectacle the likes of which has not been seen since the Roman Colosseum, and definitely not suitable for children. This is the kind of gay movement I oppose: flagrant and sordid sexuality, thrust into as many people's faces as possible purely for shock value. I would do the same were straight groups doing this, but it's interesting to note that virtually everyone "pushing back the sexual boundaries" is gay. Gays already have the right to marry. They can marry a person of the opposite sex, above the age of consent, and not closely related. If they can't find anyone who fits into that criteria, TOO BAD. A lot of straight people can't either. Every person on the planet does not have the automatic right to membership in any institution they feel like. If we're going to have gay marriages, why not blind drivers, profoundly retarded university students, weakling firefighters, deaf Bell operators, quadriplegic mailmen, etc? Michael, you imply that you are religious, yet how do you reconcile the fact that all monotheistic religions (whichever one you "belong" to) absolutely condemn homosexuality as a sin? How can you claim membership of a group that categorically rejects you on general principle? What a lot of "liberated" minds fail to do is to examine consequences. This is always a problem for them. Who could have predicted that legal abortion and sex-ed would have resulted in skyrocketing teen pregnancies, the end of options for single and young mothers, and a death toll beside which the Holocaust pales? Who could have anticipated that granting women the mere right to work would have resulted in women being obliged to work merely to support themselves and their families, like it or not? Why is it that the cheaply available automobile has created a society where ownership of one is virtually obligatory - along with smog, rising gas prices, traffic jams, etc? Who could have guessed that after the Rhineland, Austria and the Sudetenland were ceded to Hitler, that he would not stop? Look at where this society is headed. Gay marriage is not the start - the gay rights movement has been going a long time now - and it sure as hell won't be the end. Already groups are campaigning for the lowering of the age of consent to 8 years, the striking-down of all public decency laws, etc, and these groups are all gay-rights groups. This path leads to a society of political repression and complete and sordid sexual freedom, much as Huxley prophesized in his "Brave New World." Anyone doubting my words should read it and think about how possible, nay, probable a vision of our future it is. As he said, soon a marriage license will be like a dog license, renewable every year if you choose, with no laws barring changing spouses mid-marraige or having more than one, and increasing sexual freedom accompanies diminishing political freedom. Sex, not religion, is the opium of the masses, and while Chretien passes his pot and gay marraige laws, nobody is noticing his quiet reform of partisan election campaign funding in a way greatly biased towards his own party. It begins.

As a faith it is vulnerable to such a perversion. It is much more difficult to marry democracy to Islam than to Christianity, for instance, because the supremacy of God's law in Islam is far more absolute (hence the greatly diminished role of the devil), and therefore if God's power is supreme, man's cannot be. Therefore, it's all too easy for one who claims to speak for God to make a play for absolute earthly power. Christianity also has a built-in separation of Church and State - "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", and the division of the universe into the heavenly kingdom of God and the earthly kingdoms of man - which Islam does not, since God's rule is as absolute on earth as in heaven. This is not, however, to say that Islam is without hope. One could propose - as some Islamic theologians have done - that democracy is no challenge to the rule of God, as long as constitutions and leaders remain respectful of the supremacy of God. Indeed, answering to a higher power (and one that is highly revered by your electorate) may prove to be a useful check on corrupt government, as after all, the Quran binds Muslims in brotherhood and to mutual assistance. Furthermore, the long-lasting reforms of Ataturk in Turkey have proven that a secular state in a Muslim country is viable. What's important in the West is forging the right alliances. Western countries, especially America, must not appear as modern-day crusaders. It would be better to try and spread, with the help of more enlightened Muslim theologians, the more peaceable and less extremist Islamic movements. I believe this strategy has already been begun on some scale. Prime examples are the Iranian dissidents, especially in exile abroad, who are usually very learned, eloquent and intelligent people but still Muslim, and often more theologically knowledgeable than the mullahs who remain in Iran. Any liberation of the Iranian people should be closely followed by these people, who can hopefully bring peace, freedom and prosperity to Iran but yet do it in the name of Allah.

The failed great Marxist experiment, a bad hangover from the so-called Enlightenment, should illustrate the irony of that statement for you quite nicely. Really? You don't agree with the concept of law, then? Explain how we can have a stable society without any law, please.

According to the Moroccan sociologist Fatima Mernissi, Islam has always had two trends: an intellectual modus that tended towards philosophy and reason in a western intellectual/secular fashion, and a second that always resorted to violence as a way to "solve" any political problem. Which one is prevalent at this time? As I mentioned before, the Islamic reformation has already happened and Moslem counterparts to Martin Luther have already emerged - I named three - but the movements have not gained sufficient weight. The problem is religious leaders who like to whip up the people to further their own ends. It's interesting to note that Islam actually forbids priesthood of any kind (the imam is merely supposed to be an administrator, not a religious leader or teacher) because no man can intercede between another man and God. This is a prime example of how the Muhammadan message is being twisted - people exerting religious power from positions that the religion itself forbids them to have. Martyring the mullahs may not be the right way of going about it, but these fanatics have to go. There have already been Islamic movements to liberalise and "westernise" the religion, relaxing the intolerance towards nonbelievers, the oppression of women and so forth and trying to encourage intellectual and productive Islam, and these veins of the religion are the ones that need to be developed in order for the foundations of democracy and freedom to be laid amongst Muslims.

Yes, I agree, Neal. The command economy will never work as a stop-gap measure because after 15-20 years of planned economics it will be next to impossible to establish entrepreneurship and individual initiative. Exploitation is not the answer either - and nor is what the Russians call "wild capitalism", meaning the effects of suddenly unleashing a full market economy on a society and a people not used to it and unable to cope, resulting in falling real incomes, skyrocketing crime rates, corruption, increased unemployment and so forth - basically, the situation in most of the former Warsaw Pact nations. Democracy and peace are the key here. In the hands of a peaceful and law-abiding society an economy can gradually be released from necessary protectionism into the free market, without resorting to either stagnant socialism or anarchic wild capitalism. One does not want to be highly protectionist forever for the simple reason that it makes native economy and industry uncompetitive and inefficient, and yet without initial protectionism local industry in the third world will never develop. This is obviously going to take large infusions of cash and quite possibly troops, which will have to come from the developed world. This is not simply a moralistic notion, but also a practical one. As the lessons of the Second World War, and indeed of 9/11, show, it is simply not a good idea to allow a populace to be enraged with grinding poverty and oppression when that rage can so easily be roused against you by the right leader (and, it seems, one is always ready to step forward).

I don't think it's a good solution. Communism might look attractive, but it stagnates an economy and in 20 years time, Africa will probably be as relatively far behind as it is now. A better solution would be an "Economic Miracle" along the lines of the Pacific Rim countries, especially Japan. What's necessary for that is social cohesion, and as has been said, Africa has a big problem with that. Problem being that the continent was carved up by the colonial powers with little regard to tribal and cultural boundaries. They always fought each other, the difference being that now they have machine guns and old Soviet-built tanks instead of spears. Hence the massacres, and the warlords - far too many leaders fancy themselves the next Shaka. That's the main problem as I see it, not economics. After all, it doesn't matter how money is made or how much is made, as long as there are armed thugs stealing it on behalf of petty warlords.

Craig, The problem is not necessarily Islam per se, but interpretation and abuse. The way I see it, Islam today is much like Christianity in the Middle Ages, with the original message being twisted and abused for worldly power. Islam, while appearing simple, is actually very subtle and complex. Fierce debate has raged amongst Islamic theologians and philosophers on many issues, for example, the problematic issue of pre-determinism as it relates to the "goodness" of Allah. Many different opinions are held on this subject, many different answers have been posited. There are also the many sects of Islam, apart from the Shi'i and Sunni sects resulting from arguments over the succession of the Caliphate, for instance the Sufi sect, an attempt to return to fundamental Islam that has actually become the most un-Islamic of all the sects, and which borders on actual polytheism. Islam also has the potential to be peaceable. Muslims recognise the Old Testament and the New as sacred texts, and also recognise all Judeo-Christian prophets from Moses to Jesus as being messengers of God, of which Mohammed was merely the last in a line. Mohammed himself confirmed this in his writings. Muslims accept the Old Testament story of the sons of Abraham as their origin, and therefore at least potentially can accept Jews and Christians as brothers - provided they follow their scriptures, and not what the mullahs tell them! Furthermore, the Koran also allows that non-believers can be lived alongside of and tolerated so long as they make no attempt to breach the peace. For example, as long as Israel does not begin any wars, its existence can and should be peacefully tolerated by Muslims - according to scripture. A reformation of Islam along the lines of the teachings of Mohammed Abduh, Mohammed Iqbal or Sayyid Ahmad Khan would solve a lot of the problems of this religion. The groundwork has already been laid by Muslim theologians for a reformation. All it needs is to gain momentum.

Well spotted, Pellaken. However, it was not due to national debt. In fact, despite the large debt in 1815, within a few decades Britain had become the world's largest net creditor nation.

Just a note on the deficit: allowing for inflation, the US national debt at its highest is no larger than that of Britain in 1815. At that time, the national debt did not stop the massive rise in British economic and world power and her uninterrupted hegemony until 1870 - at which point British power began to be encroached upon by a rising Germany, and America itself. In this light, the debt itself cannot be described as "bad" unless you also take into account the strength of the economy and the ability to pay it. The Austro-Hungarian empire had a relatively far smaller debt in the 17th Century, and yet the interest payments alone were eating over half of all government revenues. That is a deficit problem!

Flawed moral relativism. Not that you should necessarily infer anything into the current debate, but it is a fallacy that all religions are "equally good". It simply isn't so. Take as an example Aztec religion. Before Cortes and his conquistadores arrived it was estimated that upwards of 60,000 people were being sacrificed to the Aztec gods, per year, in Tenochtitlan alone. The Aztecs went to war with stone clubs and aimed to take enemies alive in order to sacrifice them. The sacrificial method was agonising and involved the victim's chest being torn open and the still-beating heart removed. Priests would also wear the flayed skins of the victims as part of the ceremony. Some went to the sacrifices willingly, however, others did not, especially the prisoners from neighbouring lands. Now... do you think that this religion is the moral equal of Christianity or even Islam? Oh, and for the record, the concept behind the Crusades was not to "kill as many Muslims as possible." Were it that, they would surely have invaded the entire Islamic world. The aim was to reclaim the Holy Land from the Arabs who had invaded it in the 8th Century. It's often cited as a religious war, but in actual fact it was a territorial war with a sprinkling of religious ideology.

Pellaken, I'm not going to respond to your anti-Christian diatribe because it's off-topic. Perhaps you could start another thread. Regarding Islam: What disturbs me most about this religion is the encouragements to violence found in its texts and the willingness of Muslim clergy and leaders to embrace it. Muhammad himself was a warrior, as well as a preacher of war, who was wounded in battle in Medina in the year 625. Islam also divides the world into Dar el-Islam, or the House of Submission, and Dar el-Harb, or the House of War. What this means is that those who have "submitted" to Allah must be aided and helped, but those who do not may be forcibly converted or put to the sword. "O you who believe, fight the unbelievers who are near to you." - Koran 9:125. However, there is also the issue of clerical corruption in the religion. For example, Muhammad specifically forbade all those in the Muslim community, the umma, to fight each other, and yet since the Shi'ite/Sunni schism there have been countless intra-Islamic wars. The Koran forbids this, and even goes so far as to say that a Muslim must help his less fortunate brothers wherever he can. So it can also be argued that Muslim clergy are corrupting this religion and making it more violent than it needs to be, even against the word of the Prophet. This is compounded by, as Neal has said, Muslim secular leaders bending the religion as a means of coercion towards their subjects. There have been and are many civilised and non-violent Muslims. In the West there are many Muslims who lead perfectly peaceable lives, but while one can account for this by saying that in a stable and peaceful environment Islam is not a harmful religion, however, one can also argue that the non-violence of these Muslims is due to cultural assimilation. I truthfully don't know the answer to this one. The great Muslim empires of the Ottomans and the Arabs were driven by conquest and one can note that the decline of both began when their armies became over-extended and conquest became more difficult. The social cohesion of the Ottoman empire in particular was problematic. The civilisation of these empires could have been mere cultural seepage from the Byzantines, and what is more, it may have been a facade upon a violent culture made worse by its warlike rulers. What to do about it is the great question. The violent and evil Aztec religion was forcibly destroyed by the conquistadores, but clearly this is a morally reprehensible solution. One can hope for an Islamic Reformation, but who knows when or if that might happen? Clearly, the corrupt Islamic clerics and leaders have got to go. In theory, the Koran allows that those outside the umma who do not seek to breach the peace can be left alone without attempts to convert or attack them. It also praises charity and mutual support between Muslims, an idea conducive to social harmony and prosperity. Material prosperity, too, is not abhorred by Muslims and Muhammad himself preached that Muslims should seek to accumulate wealth and use it properly for the collective good. A Muslim Reformation would hopefully stress these more tolerant and peaceable aspects of Islam, rather than the warlike aspects as previous clergy and leaders have done. Hopefully we will then see a prosperous and truly civilised Muslim society that will be content to attend to its internal affairs and prosperity.

quote This is, at best, highly facetious. Independence has indeed become a motto, unfortunately, those who advocate it fail to realise that nobody is independent. This is just another way in which our society has been made only to value money. Why should a woman not be dependent on a man financially, when the man is dependent on the woman for his children? Are you really so out-of-touch and mercenary to think that money is more important than children? Though indeed it has become so, sadly, and we have the pro-abort radical-feminist camp to thank for that. They have succeeded in nothing more than debasing and belittling women, and women have been pushed into becoming imitations of men. Motherhood is now unimportant, what is important is work and money. What feminism has accomplished is to erase the differences between the sexes and make both male. How is that an empowerment of womankind, to say that the only way a woman can be worthy is to become a male in all but anatomy? quote Perhaps you should tell that to OB/GYNs, who do that every day. One can't tell a woman when to bear a child, but one can tell her when such bearing is risky (30s-40s) or near-impossible (50s). Do you not think that this is a greater disservice to women? What we have done is to dupe women into endangering their health and their babies for the sake of money. This is what you advocate - money over children, career over health. You have your priorities completely and utterly backwards if you seriously believe in this inhuman perversion of society. Until Aldous Huxley's prophecies come true (which I'm sure you await anxiously), the fact is that women are better off bearing children in their twenties, and because of said bearing will be more financially dependent on men than men are on women. This cannot be adjusted for or changed. AA is simply an attempt to sweep the problem under the carpet. Nothing has changed because of AA, except for appearances. Furthermore, it is useless to quote statistics when you do not understand the drivers creating them. Most women I know that work, don't work because they want to, but because they have to (for extra household income), and they would much rather spend more time with their children. This leaves nobody to care for the children, and what is the solution? Apparently, state-run daycare. Obviously, complete strangers would be better able to look after children (in a group of 30, no less) than their own mothers, right?

Sorry, RB, but I couldn't disagree more with your post. quote Which barriers are you talking about, specifically? Provide examples. I want no talk of "glass ceilings for women" when many companies have female CEOs and women on the board. My wife and I work for the same company, yet my wife earns 50% more than me and is a supervisor. With policies of equal opportunity, we have given everyone a place on the same starting line. Now, if everyone does not finish at the same time, that's due to who they are and their strengths and weaknesses as a person. It's fair. AA is an attempt to skew the starting line so that everybody finishes at the same time - why even bother running, then? Given this policy, most blacks (for instance) would not try as hard, knowing that despite poor study they can still get into just as good a college as harder working white kids. Then they can walk into the same jobs without trying as hard, too - same reason. Skip ahead a generation or two, and you find that white people all believe that blacks are lazy, stupid underachievers who coast by on hand-outs. This increase in racism will be a direct result of AA policy. Furthermore, if you really want to end discrimination on racial and ethnic grounds, don't you think that the best way to go is to stop focusing on the differences between races and backgrounds, rather than emphasising them as AA does? All you are doing is perpetuating the myth that blacks (for instance, again) are different and deserve different treatment. OK, it's different from Southern segregation and Apartheid, but it is exactly the same idea. That is why I oppose AA - it's a knee-jerk reaction that makes the problem it "addresses" even worse. In this I agree with Craig - AA is just as racist as Apartheid, it merely swings to the opposite end of the scale. quote And this is another problem we need to address. A woman's prime childbearing years are her twenties, and women in their thirties run a greatly increased risk of complications with negative effects on their baby's health and their own. This has come to pass because, as a society, we have effectively told womankind that the only way that they matter or that they are useful is as wage-earners, just like men. This is "equality" in the workplace - what women actually are biologically designed for and what they excel at is debased and ridiculed. Housewives are mocked as "stupid" and "unambitious", those who bear children in their early twenties even more so. This is effectively saying that the skills of raising children are worthless. As a parent, I can tell you that they aren't. Raising children well is far more demanding and requires more skill than any career. If we gave women the respect they deserve, they would not need to de-womanise themselves and become "men in skirts" in order to have "equality". That's not equality, it's self-degradation. quote More of the rampant sexism that's inherent in AA policy. Perhaps it's crossed your mind that men and women are different mentally as well as physically? Of course it has, it's scientifically proven. For instance, men are far better at spatialisation and three-dimensional thinking (comes from hunting) and women are far better at verbal skills and communicating (comes from raising children). Given this biological fact, instead of taking it into account in our society, as the vast majority of cultures in history have, we ignore it completely and attempt to stamp it out. Fine, then, as long as we are denying scientific reality in favour of "fairness", I demand that the laws of gravity be repealed since they are negatively impacting my quality of life. Who do I bring suit against for that?

AA is a very confused policy, which deals with symptoms and not root causes. Take the example of women in the workplace. On average, they still get paid less, don't go as high up the career ladder, etc. This is because they have children. They can't devote as much time to their careers. Men can raise children, but they can't bear them, and they can't nurse them (that being the medically preferred option for feeding infants), and they don't have the same nurturing bond with their children as mothers do. If women choose to go all-out for the career, they can (Martha Stewart, Anita Roddick, Anne Mulcahey), and can achieve parity with men. To say that this is unfair, is basically saying that the only way we can define the value of a human life is in terms of earning power. By this rationale, the former CEO of Enron would have led a better and more valuable life than Mahatma Gandhi.

I agree with Ned fully. The problem is not the poor, the workers and the masses but the drop-outs and those who have, even only subconsciously, rejected the values of the society they are in. Since you cannot please 100% of people 100% of time, in any system there are going to be those who fall or jump through the cracks. The real proof of the greater justice and good of the capitalist system is that for poor, working people who attempt to conform to society and the "system", capitalism gives them far greater benefits. They earn more, have a higher standard of living and much greater opportunity for advancement. If one compares the former East and West Germanies it becomes clear which system has actually given greater benefit to its people. The problems of homelessness, drug abuse and crime are personal issues, not societal issues. Society has not failed these people, they have failed themselves. The system exists that the vast majority are able to prosper.

quote Few points for your information: The USA is indeed the largest military spender in the world. It spends $399.1bn per year. The second largest is Russia. It spends $65bn per year. The Russian economy is worth $1.27 trillion annually. The US economy is worth $9.8 trillion annually. The US spends 4% of its GDP on the military, whereas Russia spends a little over 5%. The USA is not a particularly big spender in relative terms. It spends a decent enough sum in comparison to the economy size. The USSR spent about $330bn on the military in 1988, a far, far greater percentage of the Soviet economy. The fact you quote is actually correct but you need to look at the big picture.

I am quite amazed that you really believe that the US treats its citizens worse than Saddam Hussein treats his. That's all I will say.

Bill, I believe you are just being inflammatory now. I don't think any sane man could complain about how the government has failed the unemployed and depressed of the USA, while he condones the perpetuation of the habitual torture, rape and execution of countless innocent Iraqis that has gone on every day for over 20 years. Either you are trying to start arguments, or you genuinely are a racist, a bigot, a Nazi apologist and a Ba'athist. I sincerely hope that it is the former.

Rita, quote I'm not sure how you would justify your stand on this. You say that the US has a double standard because they want to "influence women's suffrage worldwide" while they have women's suffrage at home? It is not immoral to fail to ratify an international agreement that goes against your ethics as a nation. Ronda has suggested that the most probable reason for failing to ratify CEDAW is the abortion issue, and in a country where 73% disagree with legalised abortion-on-demand that is fair enough. To ratify this treaty would do a disservice to the American people, not to mention the fact that it is a complete waste of time as "women's rights" are not in any danger in the US. This doesn't even take into account that CEDAW is impotent and worthless - it was ratified by the Taliban government, who really weren't into women's rights at all. I believe that you suggest that this document is a meaningful guarantee on women's rights - which cannot be while the signatories treat women worse than non-signatories. I think it would be hypocritical if the US *did* ratify it.

Other than that which has already been said about the UN being essentially a bureacratic body whose primary mission is to preserve itself, I feel that the following is true. The UN's main goal in international affairs is not to preserve peace or to grant the wishes of the world's population. Ineffectual or entirely absent interference in world affairs have attested to that. I think the main goal is to push politically correct social programmes on the world. For instance, it seems that it is less important that the people of Central African states be free and have self-government, than that they have access to birth control. This sounds like a laudable goal, however, it almost invariably goes against the wishes of these people. Third World people don't want birth control, they want large families. This is for many reasons, but basically, other cultures praise large families. Rather than address the problems of a large, immature population (housing, employment, infrastructure), the UN would rather persuade these people that their cultural and religious beliefs are irrelevant against Western values, and re-educate these people to embrace birth control, abortion and a birth rate lower than the death rate, as many Western countries now have. Consider too the large portion of UN time devoted to women's rights and issues. Information is available on their website. The UN should not even recognise the term "women's issues", in my opinion. I consider that there are no women's rights or issues, only *human* rights and issues. If women are oppressed in the Middle East, that is not a violation of their women's rights but a violation of their human rights. The UN is not solving any problems with these kinds of stances, merely playing up to lobby groups and popular causes, and that is what the UN is all about. Style over content, and procedure more important than results. Comments?