by Rousas J. Rushdoony

Any discussion of the United Nations is inevitably a religious discussion, for the principles which that organization embodies are not merely political and economic but inescapably religious. As a result, an historical study, however valuable in its own sphere, is inappropriate to our concern. The failures of the U.N. are real and they are many, but it can perhaps be legitimately argued that, as a young institution, it needs time to mature and that its errors are the accidents of youth rather than the diseases of old age. The more basic question is this: Is it established on a solid foundation, or is it built on sand? Is it a boon to humanity, or a menace? It is thus a matter of principles more than of specific incidents and histories.

The religious connotation of the U.N. is apparent in most discussions thereof. Its opponents attack it as anti-Christian and anti-American, and, with no small heat, the proponents of the U.N. defend it as man's great hope for peace and true social order and see its critics as wicked, hate-filled heretics whom they denounce with conspicuous heat and hate.1 It would be the course of wisdom for both sides to recognize that there is no lack of intelligence on both sides, and to concede the earnest faith of both parties, by recognizing that what divides them is not a matter of stupidity and "mental illness" but sharply contrasted articles of faith.

The U.N. thus must be seen in the context of its religious presuppositions. It is, historically, an outgrowth of Enlightenment concepts and of the religion of humanity.2

First of all, the U.N. holds as its basic premise a thesis which has a long history in both religion and in politics, the doctrine of salvation by law. It believes that world peace can be attained through world law.3 In Article I, Section 2 of Chapter I, "Purposes and Principles" of the Charter of the United Nations, it is declared that the purpose is

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.4

The Charter makes clear that this purpose, while central, is not the only one. It has, however, received central attention from many proponents. Thus, Eichelberger held in 1955 that "The purpose of the United Nations is the maintenance of peace."5 The problem of the U.N., he held, is political. i.e., methodological, for "The nations can agree upon a foolproof system of disarmament if a political agreement or series of political agreements clears the way."6 "Universal enforceable disarmament with collective security is the final answer to the threat of atomic destruction."7 In other words, remove by force an aspect of man's environment, atomic weapons, and peace will follow. The U.N. needs to be strengthened to this end, he held. "The United Nations is in the shadowy area between an organization of states and a world government."8 In 1960, Eichelberger reaffirmed his stand: "The purpose of the United Nations is to prevent war."9 Its purpose, moreover, is to establish an international society for this purpose:

The fundamental question could be stated in another way: is the United Nations the foundation of international policy or an instrument which nations can use or reject as short-sighted self-interest dictates?

An examination of the Charter's Preamble, purposes and principles leads to the inescapable conclusion that the framers of the United Nations contemplated a dynamic international society. The world was at war. The peoples of many nations were serving together and making terrible sacrifices to win the war. They believed that with peace would come an international society strong enough to prevent war and build a just international order. The Atlantic Charter expressed this belief.10

The responsibilities of this international society must be "Planet Earth as a whole. And Planet Earth must be a moral and legal entity."11

This first premise, salvation by law, is a venerable one, with extensive religious support. It is, clearly, the basic doctrine of Judaism, and it is extensively present in traditional Christianity as in Thomism and Arminianism. It is the dominant doctrine of modernistic, social gospel Protestantism. Two aspects of this premise have already become manifest: First, that the hope and salvation of man and of society is through world law, and, second, that the essence or at least the primary factor in peace is environmental rather than personal. The environment must be altered by the removal of atomic weapons and by the addition of enforceable world law. This is a faith which many hold who are politically and economically conservative, as witness Senator Barry M. Goldwater, who holds that the U.N. needs re-direction, not abolition. The same is true of Felix Morley.12 This position, however, cannot be consistently held by one who is a conservative or orthodox Christian because of its radical conflict with basic biblical doctrine. For the orthodox Christian, the law cannot save; it can only condemn. The law cannot create true peace and order; it cannot save man and society from the consequences of their sins. Christ alone is the prince and principle of peace and of order, man's only savior and mediator. Neither introduction of law nor the removal of a part of man's environment are basic to the problem of peace, but rather regeneration through the saving work of Christ, His vicarious sacrifice, and sanctification in and through Him. Wars are not environmental in sources and origin but human. "From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?" (James 4:1). Thus war is caused by sin, not by environment. Moreover, not all who are involved in war are equally sinners. Some are unjustly attacked and must defend themselves, so that peace as such is not always a virtue and can be as evil as any war. More accurately, war in itself cannot be called evil, for sin resides in man himself rather than in things, so that to seek the abolition of war is to evade the basic issue, the sin of man. And man's need is regeneration, which is not the function of the state. For the state to presume to save man is for the state to assume the prerogatives of the church. The Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares in part, "We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war... to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest... have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims." The U.N. is thus "determined to save"; it is thus possessed with all the sense of inevitability and missionary fervor that any religious group possesses. It deserves to be regarded as a crusading missionary organization and to be respected for its idealistic faith, but, at the same time, regarded by orthodox Christians as a false and deadly faith, all the more deceptive because its idealism is premised on an anti-Christian faith. Inescapably, the hostility between the U.N., with its doctrine of the salvation of man and society by law, and orthodox Christianity is no less intense and bitter now than when the Sanhedrin felt that the future of the people and of their Temple required the death of Jesus (John 11:49-52).

A second basic premise of the U.N. is closely related to the first. Believing as it does in world peace through world law, it assumes that this world rule of law is necessarily the rule of morality. This illusion has been clearly expressed by Dean Roscoe Pound: "The real foe of absolution is law."13 Yet the "courts are creatures of the political community," one advocate of this position affirms.14 Is absolutism then really the enemy of law? Is not all positivistic law dedicated to absolutism? If no higher law is recognized, and if law is what man says it is, is not either the law or man absolutized, and, in either case, the controlling powers invested with total power? John Foster Dulles, in championing the U.N., clearly affirmed this same equation of "agreed law" and morality:

It is generally agreed that a stable world order depends most of all upon the existence of an adequate body of international law which can be administered so as to secure justice. There is no such body of law today. Without it certain other steps cannot be taken. It is not safe to give coercive power to the Security Council or to any other international body unless that body is bound to administer agreed law. Without law, power is despotism. We ought not to try to impose international despotism upon others; neither should we consent to have it imposed upon ourselves.15

But the U.S.S.R. is both a despotism and has an agreed law. It is moreover democratic in structure. According to the Chairman of the U.S.S.R. Supreme Court:

In the USSR justice is administered only by the courts, and all citizens are equal before the law and the court., irrespective of social or property status, office, nationality, race or religion.

All courts in the USSR are elective. Every citizen of the USSR who enjoys the right of suffrage is eligible for election as judge or people's assessor. There is no property or other qualification; all that is required is that the candidate shall have attained the age of 25.16

The Soviet Constitution affirms the rule of law, of Soviet law, from whence comes all true power and law. As Article 3 affirms, "All power in the U.S.S.R. belongs to the working people of town and country as represented by the Soviets of Working People's Deputies."17 Why not then accept the U.S.S.R. as an area of freedom, because ruled by law, rather than a despotism? And yet even Socialists have been ready to apply such terms as "lynch procedure" to Soviet law.18 What would constitute "agreed law" for Dulles? Soviet scholars believe their society to be more truly concerned with the individual and with true humanism than "anti-humanist . . . monopoly capitalism."19 Dulles, as an earnest and even sanctimonious champion of modernist Christianity, had much to say about the righteous foundations of peace.20 Dulles defined the basis of law:

Fundamentally, world peace depends upon world law, and world law depends upon a consensus of world opinion as to what is right and what is just. If there is wide disagreement about what is right and just, there will always be risk of war. Human nature is such that men always have believed — and I trust always will believe — as President Wilson put it in his war message to Congress, "The right is more precious than peace."

Experience in the United Nations shows that there is considerable agreement about what is right. That is particularly true between those who are influenced by one or another of the great religions· All the great religions reflect to some degree the moral or natural law, and that makes it possible to find many common denominators of right and wrong.

The great difficulty today is that the Communist rulers, who control so much of the world, are animated by an atheistic creed which denies the existence of a moral law or a natural law. To them, laws do not reflect justice, but are ways whereby those in power win their class war. For their beliefs and ours, it is impossible to find a common denominator. They do, however, pay attention to other people's sense of right and justice, because that affects what they will do and how they will act in any given situation. That is always of interest, even to despots.21

Three points are here apparent. First, Dulles, holding that "world peace depends upon world law," grounds that world law on no more than "a consensus of world opinion as to what is right and what is just." This consensus includes what the great religions have to say, and, if there be "wide disagreement," then "there will always be a risk of war." Dulles' foundation is thus purely immanent, a consensus or general will, and, because agreement is so important, it is logical to urge the world religions to suppress their differences or at the least to make them unessential to their position Second, Dulles made the very questionable assumption that all "great religions" are extensively agreed "about what is right." Orthodox Christianity would not accept this assumption. Third, Dulles held that, because Communism is atheistic, "it is impossible to find a common denominator" with respect to "a moral law or a natural law." One would logically assume that Dulles felt that the Communist states and all atheistic states have no place in the U.N. This, however, was not the ease. In fact, Dulles in 1950 called for the recognition of Red China as a necessity if that government retained power "over a reasonable period of time."22 How was this rationalized, when no moral common denominator exists, according to Dulles? There is another common denominator, power:

At the present stage of world development we should try to evolve a world organization that will form moral judgments and reflect as adequately as possible the quantity, quality, and intensity of power which will back these judgments.

. . . Some persons would like to throw out Soviet Russia because we disagree with their representatives and they with us. A world organization without Soviet Communists would be a much more pleasant organization. But they have power in the world, and if the United Nations gets away from that reality it becomes artificial and exerts less influence. The United Nations should mirror more accurately, not less accurately, the reality of what is.23

The world must be saved by law, and law reflects power rather than morality. Indeed, the United Nations must be beyond good and evil:

I have now come to believe that the United Nations will best serve the cause of peace if its Assembly is representative of what the world actually is, and not merely representative of the parts which we like. Therefore, we ought to be willing that all the nations should be members without attempting to appraise closely those which are "good" and those which are "bad." Already that distinction is obliterated by the present membership of the United Nations.24

How can Dulles affirm the primacy of world law based "upon what is right and just" and then deny the validity, in that world order, of any appraisal of "good" and "bad" nations? The answer may lie in his central moral conviction:

Our greatest need is to regain confidence in our spiritual heritage. Religious belief in the moral nature and possibilities of man is, and must be, relevant to every kind of society, throughout the ages past and those to come. It is relevant to the complex conditions of modern society. We need to see that, if we are to combat successfully the methods and practices of a materialistic belief.25

Orthodox Christianity affirms as the "greatest need," intellectually, the true recognition of the nature of Christ and of his saving power. The religion of humanity, which Dulles affirmed, found the nature of Christ irrelevant or at best a peripheral issue to "religious belief in the moral nature and possibilities of man." But for orthodox Christianity, man is a sinner, not the object of faith. Dulles felt it was a triumph of the U.N. that religious differences are regarded as irrelevant: "They mingle together on a basis of social and intellectual equality, irrespective of nation, race, sex, or creed." This, he held, was "genuine fellowship,"' practiced at the U.N. "more than anywhere else."26 But for an orthodox Christian, who denies the equality of all creeds, this fellowship is anathema. All of these assumptions by the U.N., Dulles, and others, adds up to a simple equation: the rule of law is the rule of morality, which is faith in man. And this, in its own way, is a faith which Marxism emphatically holds. The world problem again appears, in this focus, not as a need for regeneration but for re-organization, not a change in man's nature but a change in ,man's legal and institutional environment. And this, of course was the Enlightenment hope.27

The goal of the U.N. is thus a humanistic order rather than a moral order in the sense of a transcendental law and the categories of good and evil. Humanism itself is equated with morality, and no other category can have any relevance. The Preamble makes clear that its allegiance is to "fundamental human rights," not to fundamental moral or religious rights or principles. The charter in stating its "Purposes and Principles," speaks clearly and plainly on this matter, affirming as a purpose and principle of the U.N.

To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.28

It is moreover stated that "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all Members."29 This is at least an unrealistic statement in view of the veto power granted to certain members. Again it is stated that the United Nations shall promote:

a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;

b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and

c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.30

A third premise of the U.N. is thus clearly in view: it is a humanistic order, equalitarian and socialistic as well as totalitarian. It is denied that economics or religion are separate law spheres; both are subordinate to politics, to world politics, which must govern to secure "conditions of economic and social progress and development." Religious differences are denied any validity, for no distinction as to religion is permitted. Not the freedom of economic law and religious activity but world legislation with respect to both is in view. Here is a position radically at odds with historic, orthodox Christianity. It is at odds also with the constitutional heritage of the United States. It is in power today, however, in both the U.N. and the United States. William O. Douglas, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, has declared, "We believe that the extinction of any civilization, culture, religion, or life-ways is a loss to all humanity."31 This of course immediately renders guilty every universal religion, i.e., every faith which believes that it is the hope of every man's salvation, because every such faith seeks to destroy by conversion every false faith. It renders guilty every American who longs for and works for the destruction of Communism. It is a demand for total tolerance because of total acceptance. Faith is in humanity as such, not in a transcendental moral and spiritual order. It is not "In God We Trust," but "In Man We Trust." According to Douglas, "As Mr. Justice Holmes once said, 'Universal distrust creates universal incompetence.'"32 The biblical mandate, "Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?" (Isa. 2:22) and " . . . beware of men" (Matt. 10:17), is set aside, not on any empirical grounds of evidence, but on religious grounds. This strange new doctrine we are now told is the truly Christian and the truly American doctrine! Harry Dexter White, in his testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee on August 13, 1948, affirmed this faith and said, in part, "My creed is the American creed ... I am opposed to discrimination in any form, whether on grounds of race, color, religious, political belief, or economic status."33 According to this position, there can logically be no discrimination against religious polygamy or cannibalism, or against communism. V. Frank Coe, on the stand on May 15, 1956, objected to being questioned as to his alleged Communist allegiance during a stated period, stating "that he should not be questioned about his political beliefs."34 The logic of this is that there can be no challenge to what the humanistic world powers declare to be the status quo. As Lenny Bruce has stated it, "The religious leaders are 'what should be' . . . Let me tell you the truth. The truth is 'what is.' If 'what is' is, you have to sleep eight, ten hours a day, that is the truth. A lie will be: People need no sleep at all. Truth is 'what is.'"35 Everything that exists, perversions, murders, and the like stands at least on an equality with good character as truth. Whatever this humanistic world order therefore declares to be "what is" is therefore "the truth." But it is a violation of orthodox Christian faith to see the state as the order of truth, which the Charter of the U.N. makes it to be. We need not go to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt had a major part, to substantiate this. The Charter itself makes clear that this universal equalitarianism is the true faith for all mankind. It is, moreover, an absolute order, binding on all mankind. "In the United Nations, as 'in my Father's house,' there 'are many mansions.'"36 What does this mean? The Charter is explicit, as Cohen points out:

The Charter of the United Nations is a treaty, but not an ordinary treaty. The Member States which subscribe to the Charter not only commit themselves to act in pursuance of the purposes and in conformity with the principles of the Charter, but authorize the Organization to ensure that non-Member as well as Member States act in accordance with the principles of the Charter, so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. The Charter looks toward, if it does not establish, a world-wide community of nations dedicated to the purposes and principles of the Charter.37

Lest it be assumed that this is merely Cohen's personal opinion, let us examine the Charter at this point:

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.38

As a result, any act or agency of the U.N. which that body declares to be in accordance with its principles, such as UNESCO or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted near midnight, December 10, 1948, when the General Assembly met in Paris), is enforceable by armed force on any member or non-member state. That the U.N. intends to exert such force whenever and wherever it is able to do so can be safely assumed. In the meantime, certainly the constituent states are not lacking in politicians who are dedicated to "peaceful coexistence" as "a first step" towards "a staging area from which further advances toward the ideal global order can be launched."39 To gain this peaceful coexistence, "The building of greater confidence and trust thus becomes a first objective of peaceful coexistence."40 Again, faith in man is a basic perspective. Certainly the U.S. has dedicated itself to an attempt, no less zealously than the U.S.S.R., to create a world order and world peace.

This is in evidence in the State Department, as in the U.N., and also in NATO, which is defined as "not merely a military alliance . . . it equally envisages permanent common action in the political and economic fields."41

These human rights which are to be imposed on all societies are basically hostile to every society. There is no country without a religious and racial orientation. In the U.S.S.R., the old Christian faith maintains its vitality underground. Each Soviet Republic is outwardly governed by men of its own racial origin. Thus, "in the Lithuanian Republic 90.6% of the judges are Lithuanians, and in the Armenian SSR 95% are Armenian.42 Indeed, charges of anti-Semitism are leveled against the U.S.S.R., Jacobson charging that a high percentage of criminal executions involve Jews.43 Others, like Bishop James A. Pike, have stated the reverse, namely, that the "Russians extend the melting pot idea to the point of persecution. In Russia, they say one can't be different. They say, 'We won't allow you to have cultural and religious separateness."'44 Whether either position is accurate is at least a matter of debate and probably questionable. Nonetheless, it can be safely said that it is likely that some race or races are the object of prejudice and discrimination in the U.S.S.R., and all historic religions as well. Certainly India discriminates against races and faiths alien to itself, as does Israel, Yemen, Ghana, and virtually every state in existence. Each properly represents the order of a particular people and a general or specific faith. The U.N. Charter gives grounds for the interference of that body into every national and religious state in existence in the name of total equality.

The U.N. position, ostensibly anti-racist, is no less racist than the most fervent champions of race in history. Indeed, the liberal, religion of humanity, faith is simply a form of racism. There are two kinds of racism today. For the first, to belong to a particular race, white or black, Jewish or Arab, is all-important. Membership in a particular group is itself the mark of distinction and discrimination, and constitutes the dividing line. For the second form of racism, to belong to the human race is all-important. For both positions, racial membership is the test, the ticket of admission and the guarantee of status. Against this expanded or liberal form of racism, as against all forms of racism, orthodox Christianity enters a dissent. For the Christian, character, born of faith, is the test of man, not a particular race or the human race. Racial differences are recognized as real and as God-given, but the determinative fact concerning man is his relationship to God, not his fact of humanity. This is the biblical position; it is also the position which makes for progress by emphasizing quality. Quality is sought out and emulated. A people, discriminated against at one time, by emulation advance themselves, as witness the Irish in America. Therefore, in no uncertain terms, the orthodox Christian must regard the universal racism of the U.N. as a menace, destructive of the faith and detrimental to man.

The humanism of the U.N., as has been already indicated, rests on a religious doctrine of man, the fourth premise of its position. Because man must be trusted, and, because humanity as such is its standard apart from all distinctions of race or creed, idealism is held to be workable. All men, insofar as they are divorced from the alienating faiths of nationalism and supernatural religion, are assumed to seek peace and to desire it. Man is good, except when perverted by limited allegiances of country and faith. But idealism is one of the worst enemies of orthodox Christianity, in that it denies the doctrine of original sin and asserts that man's works and law can overcome the effects of sin and sin itself. It assumes that men's motives are good: they seek peace and progress when not perverted by outside influences. But orthodox Christianity says that men seek rather death and destruction apart from Christ. "All they that hate me love death" (Prov. 8:36). The idealism of unregenerate man is self-defeating and self-deceiving.

But the presupposition that man can save himself and his society by his own works and law rests not only on the assumption that man's basic problems are environmental rather than ethical and religious, i.e., due to a fallen nature, but also on the assumption that all human differences are of degree only, and not of kind. Hence they can be remedied or reconciled by man. Man must therefore seek relief, not from God but from himself magnified into the form of a world state. Orthodox Christianity, by its insistence on the sovereignty of God in salvation as in all things, cannot give assent to this faith.

But, in this perspective of the religion of humanity as incarnated in the U.N., the human problem is one of proper management and direction rather than a change of nature. What man needs thus is not the divine act but human engineering and planning.

By its failure to reckon with the fact of sin as the reality of human nature rather than an accident of environment and training, the U.N. is not only incompetent to deal with sin but especially prone to it. No legislative body is immune from the fact of sin. Every kind of institution, civil, religious, educational or otherwise, with any history of any length, has been characterized at some time or other, sometimes and often chronically, by corrupt practices, including graft and bribery. But in those bodies where a strong and active Christian faith prevails, that faith conditions and governs the limits of corruption, although it does not expect perfection this side of heaven. In the U.N., lacking in Christian faith and subscribing to an idealistic humanism, there is no such limitation. The voting is almost strictly in terms of the most corrupt kind of power politics and bribery.45

By failing to reckon with the fact of sin, the U.N. falls into the same fallacy as Marxism, that of seeing the backward peoples not simply as backward because of false faith and bad character but as victimized. The consequences of this position are favoritism for the backward and the delinquent (as well as the criminal), and the penalizing of the advanced. "Burden-sharing" is imposed on the advanced in the form of extensive grants in aid to other nations.46 These nations are not termed backward or degenerate but rather "the less developed members."47 Progress is seen as an accident of environment and opportunity, not as a consequence of religious character.

It is possible to cite at length the political consequences of the false premises of the U.N. A few will suffice. The Charter provides for centralization of power and vastly expands the powers of state. Its officials are appointed. Property rights and trial by jury are omitted from the Charter. The U.S. Constitution, on the other hand, both separates and limits the powers and the branches of the federal government. It provides for elected officials, protects property rights, and protects the right of trial by jury. The Constitution denies to the federal union any jurisdiction over religion; the Charter forbids all religious distinctions, which is tantamount to abolishing all religions save the religion of humanity. Established to keep the peace, it has failed to keep the peace.48 While talking much of human rights, as in The Covenant on Human Rights, its "every statement of right places in government hands unlimited authority to define the right and to restrict every exercise of it."49 It has been consistently a threat to historic liberties.50 The U.N. has been characterized in its brief history by one sorry scandal after another, and one failure after another: the Bang-Jensen case, Hungary, Tibet, Palestine, Goa, the Congo, Angola, and many, many more.51

The U.N. believes in salvation by law, but in no historic sense does it have law. The two central definitions of law are (1) the binding custom or practice of a community, or (2) the commandments or revelations of God. The U.N. has no community of law, nor any revealed religious basis. As a result, its decisions, as well as those of the World Court, are bound to be an injustice to most men. Law, however, can also be the rule of conduct and action prescribed by a supreme governing authority and enforced thereby. Such law from early times has been called tyranny. The laws of the U.N. thus, however well-intentioned, and the decisions of the World Court, however much informed by a zeal for humanity, are inescapably a tyranny to most men. To impose the laws of Islam upon a Jain and a Christian is surely tyranny, even as would be the imposition of Jewish law upon a Moslem. Law can be as much an instrument of invasion and tyranny as can bayonets; alien laws strike at the heart of a culture and at its vitals. In the name of defending all cultures, the U.N. is a new humanistic culture aimed at destroying all others by means of the imperialism of world law and a world police. It is not surprising that the U.N. is unpopular with many, and this distaste for the U.N. is no doubt a factor among others in the financial delinquency of many members with respect to dues. The U.S. is paying "nearly half of the U.N. peacekeeping operations," among other things.52

While weak in many areas, the U.N. is clearly strong in the support it gains from certain religious circles, especially where the religion of humanity is clearly in view. During World War I, the European World Conscience Society distributed to the clergy in the English-speaking world a book dedicated to affirming "the spiritual unity of man" as a scientific fact, "Proclaiming his social unity," and "preaching the gospel of political unity."53 The oneness of all races, religions, and states was the new gospel of this agency.

During World War II, the joint operation of all religions to create the new world order was urged through a Federal Council of Churches Commission. Everett R. Clinchy urged, "Let Protestants, Catholics and Jews and those of other religious faith live to prove that men can together build the natural world without and the intellectuals and moral world within so that the united peoples of the world shall create a prosperity, as Lincoln suggested, whose course shall be forward and which as long as the earth endures shall never pass away.54

The National Council of Churches has repeatedly called for support of the U.N. In its 1963 Philadelphia Assembly message, after calling for "racial brotherhood and justice," the "National Council's Message to the Churches" went on to say, in terminology common to the religion of humanity:

As churches, we must actively support the United Nations and adequate aid for developing nations; must press for significant steps toward disarmament and for diversion of enormous resources now devoted to the arms race to a frontal attack on the unmet needs of mankind;

and must recognize that revolutionary movements of our time may be new thrusts for human dignity and freedom.55

These general terms could serve to give dignity to any revolutionary movement, for which do not claim to seek "human dignity and freedom?"

On April 10, 1963, Pope John XXIII addressed an encyclical, "Pacem in Terris," to the Roman Catholic Church and "to all men of good will," calling for a world community without Christian faith as its premise.56 Although some churchmen sought to give the encyclical a conservative perspective, others, like Father Joseph Walsh, C.S.P., saw in it radical directions:

I personally never thought I would see the day when a Pope would talk about the human family having entered upon an advance towards limitless horizons — this, from the successor of a Pope who, a hundred years ago, was condemning liberalism with its claims of man's capacity to grow and perfect himself as somehow opposed to the innate limitations of humanity. This change is of great significance for the way in which Catholicism and Catholics in general will view the future and the problems of mankind. Man is now looked upon as capable of advancing towards limitless horizons. The Pope very much wants to immerse his institution in that advance.57

Some men have openly called for a world religion, or a United Religions order comparable to the United Nations. Thus, Dr. Luther H. Evans, Dartmouth College professor of political science and ex-director general of UNESCO has said, "The peace of the world demands not only the existence of the United Nations, but also a United Religions."58 But "conflict, not peace will be the consequence of pressures for religious unity."59

The religious tension and conflict between orthodox Christianity and the religion of humanity, to mention no others, cannot be reconciled. Orthodox Christianity sees the problem of man as "a disruption between man and God ... the troubles man has are due to a broken relationship with his Maker." The religion of humanity points instead "to the disruption within human personality. It is said that ideally man is a 'whole' person and that breakdowns in this wholeness cause the troubles man experiences." Here the basic problem is not "a disruption between man and God" but "the basic problem is rather a disruption within — and between man and man" requiring, among other things, the restoration of "the dimensions of brotherhood."60 Dr. Franklin Littell has stated the aim of the faith is "the renewal of the social structure...not the saving of individual souls," for "God wants to restore responsibility to a rebellious and broken social order."61

This is a revolutionary, messianic, and anti-historical religious faith, for its goal is the end of history in the perfect social order. As one man has stated it, "The realm of childhood is, by nature, a real democracy. Children do not know the past; they live in the present; they have no anguish of the future."62 Not only must all men and all religions be equal, but apparently all times and ages as well!

Certainly, this faith offers an easy equalization of all standards. When the Rev. Adam Clayton Powell, Negro Congressman and civil rights leader, was criticized for his moral conduct, his answer was forthright and rigorously honest. "I know what they're saying, 'You should be better than other people because you might embarrass the civil rights struggle.' Why should I be better than other people? Hell, man, I'm fighting for equality!"63

A one world order requires a one world religion in order to be undergirded by a living fabric of faith and law. The issue will be joined, accordingly, in the arena of Christian faith rather than in political action, for the dynamics of action are in the realm of faith. For the one world order to advance, it must wage war against religion, orthodox Christianity in particular. There is thus no escaping the fact of religious warfare. Those who refuse to offer incense to the new caesars will face both hostility and persecution. But even more certainly, they will have from their faith the assurance of victory (I John 5:4,5).



1See Gordon H. Hall: The Hate Campaign Against the U.N., One World Under Attack. Boston: Beacon Press, 1952.

2See R. J. Rushdoony, This Independent Republic. Nutley, N.J.: Craig Press, 1964.

3See Grenville Clark and Louis B. Sohn: World Peace Through World Law. Cambridge: Harvard, 1958.

4For a commentary on this, see Hans Kelsen: The Law of the United Nations, A Critical Analysis of its Fundamental Problems, pp. 27 ff. New York: Praeger, 1950.

5Clark M. Eichelberger: U.N.: The First Ten Years, p. 8. New York: Harper, 1955.

6Ibid., p. 51.

7Ibid., p. 52.

8Ibid., p. 89.

9Clark M. Eichelberger: U.N.: The First Fifteen Years, p- 8: cf. p. 4.

10lbid., p. 125.

11Ibid., p. 147.

12Barry M. Goldwater: Why Not Victory? p. 99 f. New York: Macfadden, 1962. Felix Morley wrote, "On the whole, the Charter is workmanlike and will be workable, if resolute popular will to that end is manifest in this and other countries": The Charter of the United Nations, An Analysis, p. 55. New York: American Enterprise Association, January, 1946.

13Roscoe Pound: Justice According to Law, pp. 87-91; New Haven: Yale, 1951, cited in Victor G. Rosenblum: Law as a Political Instrument, p. 81; New York: Random House, 1962.

14Rosenblum, idem. Raymond Swing equated the U.N. developed into world government, as law and national sovereignty as lawlessness and anarchy, Raymond Swing: In the Name of Sanity, p. 116; New York: Harper, 1946.

15John Foster Dulles: War or Peace, p. 198. New York: Macmillan, 1950. On Dulles, see James J. Martin: Meditations Upon the Early Wisdom of John Foster Dulles; Mercer Island, Washington, 1958.

16Alexander Gorkin, "Guilty or Not Guilty — Who Decides?" in USSR Soviet Life Today, p. 17, December, 1963.

17Robert Le Fevre: Constitutional Government Today in Soviet Russia, The Constitution of the U.S.S.R. Annotated and explained, p. 19. New York: Exposition, 1962.

18Julius Jacobson, "Russian Law Enters the 'Final Stages of Communism' — 1," in New Politics p. 19-42, Fall, 1963, vol. II. no. 4.

19"See Y. A. Zamoshkin, "Bureaucracy and the Individual," The Soviet Review, August, 1961, vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 20-38 and Nikolai Gei and Vladimir Piskunov, "Abstract Humanism and Socialist Humanism," The Soviet Review, June, 1961, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 39-55.

20See John Foster Dulles, "The American People Need Now to be Imbued with a Righteous Faith," in Dulles, etc.: A Righteous Faith for a Just and Durable Peace, pp. 5-11. New York: Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and Durable Peace, Federal Council of Churches, 1942. For Dulles' piety, see Margaret Dulles Edwards, "Tomorrow's Legacy," Bible Society Record, vol.' 109, no. 1 January, 1964. p. 12 f.

21Dulles: War or Peace, p. 187. 

22Ibid., p. 190.

23Ibid., p. 188.

24Ibid., p. 190. Alexander Dallin concurs with this opinion in The Soviet Union at the United Nations, An Inquiry into Soviet Motives and Objectives, p. 212 f.; New York: Praeger, p. 213. Soviet hopes from the U.N. are cited by Dallin, p. 192.

25Ibid., p. 261.

26bid., p. 65. While talking of equality, the U.N. is the most elitist of organizations. The General Assembly has no power but can only recommend action. The Security Council is vested with the actual power, while the Court executes its legal will. The Security Council can order against any country such measures as it deems including war, or total blockade, or "complete or partial interruption o£ economic relations, and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio and other means of communication" Charter, chapt. VII, articles 41, 42.

Dulles affirmed his belief in man. It is well remember who the politicians are who have most often spoken of the need for such faith. Thus, it was Senator John C. Spooner, who, at the beginning of the 20th century, defended himself and other corrupt politicians, saying, "There is no treason in the Senate! The one man I despise most is he who takes upon his lips in blasphemy the good character of a woman; next to that is the man who will tear down the character of the man in public life. Above all things, my brothers, believe in your republic and in the general fidelity of your public servants." Faith in man is the constant plea of corrupt men. David Graham Phillips: The Treason of the Senate, p. 51. Stanford: Academic Reprints (1906 in original Cosmopolitan publication).

27See Louis I. Bredvold: The Brave New World of the Enlightenment. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1961.

28Charter of the United Nations. Chapt. I, Article 1, Sect. 3.

29Charter, I, 2, 1.

30Charter IX, 55.

31William O. Douglas: Democracy's Manifesto, p. 44. Garden
City, New York: Doubleday, 1962.

32Ibid., p. 28.

33Nathan I White: Harry Dexter White, Loyal American, p. 11 f.; of. 22 f.; 41 f. published by Bessie (White) Bloom, Waban, Mass., 1956. White's "creed" is becoming U.S. Supreme Court law. Thus, in 1952, (343 U.S. 250) in Beauharnais v. Illinois, the Court "sanctioned state antihate legislation which imposed criminal sanctions on persons guilty of publishing statements which exposed the citizens of any race color, creed, or religion to contempt, derision, or obloquy." Paul G. Kauper: Civil Liberties and the Constitution, p. 58; Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1962. Subsequently, the Illinois FEPC ruled that the Motorola Co. stop using ability tests for job applicants on the ground that the test was discriminatory and unfair in failing to make allowance for "culturally deprived and disadvantaged groups" and for "inequalities and differences in environment." See Human Events, vol. XXIV, no. 14, April 4, 1964, pp. 4, 13. In other words, the incompetent must be made privileged, and the competent penalized to equalize men in the name of democracy.

34Ibid., p. 408.

35Lenny Bruce, "How to talk dirty and influence people," Playboy, vol. 11 no. 1 January 1964, p. 182.

36Benjamin V. Cohen: The United Nations, Constitutional Developments, Growths, and Possibilities, p. 101. The Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures, 1961. Cambridge: Harvard, 1961.

37Ibid., p. 2 f.

38Charter, I, 6. See also Eichelberger: U.N.: The First Fifteen Years, pp. 106-8; Kelsen, p. 75 f.

39Arthur N. Holcombe, chairman: Peaceful Coexistence, A New Challenge to the United Nations, p. 37. Twelfth Report, Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, Research Affiliate of the American Association for the United Nations New York: 1960.

40Ibid., p. 19.

41North Atlantic Treaty Organization Information Service: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, p. 7 f.; cf. p. 52. The NATO Handbook. Paris, 1962. See also John Fischer: Master Plan U.S.A., An Informal Report on America's Foreign Policy and the Men Who Make It; New York: Harper. 1951; Nelson A. Rockefeller: The Future of Federalism New York: Atheneum, 1963; see the Department of State Foreign Policy Briefs for numerous instances; see President Lyndon B. Johnson's State of Union Message of January 8, 1964, S. F. Examiner, Thursday, January 9, 1964 p. 14

42Gorkin, idem.

43Jacobson, p. 34 ff.

44S. F. Examiner, Tuesday, January 7, 1964, p. 9.

45For one instance, see Alfred Lilientahal: What Price Israel?, pp. 61 ff., with reference to Palestine; Chicago: Regnery, 1953. This, however, is merely one case among many.

46See Pierre Uri: Partnership for Progress, A Program for Transatlantic Actions, p. 45. Published for the Atlantic Institute by Harper and Row, New York, 1963.

47Eichelberger: The U.N.: The First Fifteen Years. p. 130 f.

48See "There is No Peace — 18 Years 57 Wars," The Indianapolis News, Monday, April 29, 1963.

49V. Orval Watts: Should We Strengthen the United Nations? p. 29, Colorado Springs: The Freedom School, 1961.

50Alice Widener: Behind the U.N. Front. New York: Bookmailer, 1962. Widener has an interesting chapter on the U.N. advocate, Clark M. Eichelberger pp. 87-94.

51See U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary: The Bang-Jensen Case, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961: Julius Epstein: "The Bang-Jensen Tragedy," American Opinion, vol. III, no. 5, May, 1960; Congo July 1960 Evidence. Statement by Mr. Merchiers, Belgian Minister of Justice; 46 Angry Men, The 46 Civilian Doctors of Elisa-bethville Denounce U.N.O. Violations in Katanga, Belmont, Mass., 1962; On the Morning of March 15, Boston: Portuguese-American Committee on Foreign Affairs, n.d.; On the double role of Lt. General Vasiliev, with the U.N. and with the North Korean invasion. in the Korean War, see U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Public Information, release no. 465-54, Saturday, May 15, 1954; Michel Sturdza: World Government and Internal Assassination, Belmont, Mass., 1963, p. 18, cites Professor Hans Morgenthau of Chicago as stating that "The International Government of the United Nation, stripped of its legal trimmings, then, is really the International Government of the United States and the Soviet Union acting in unison;" the citation is from Hans J. Morgenthau, "The New United Nations, What It Can't and Can Do." Commentary, November 1958, vol. 26, no. 5, p. 376. Morgenthau, who favors the U.N., points out that the U.N.'s legal power is in the Security Council, which has "only two . . . really great powers," the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. When these two work in unison, they are the U.N.; "if they are disunited — there will be no international government at all." One can conclude, therefore, from the activities of the U. N. that there is a growing range of action in unison.

52Oakland (Calif.) Tribune, "Showdown in the U.N." editorial, p. 23 Wednesday, January 8, 1964.

53Walter Walsh: The World Rebuilt, p. 27. London: Allen and Unwin, 1917.

54Everett R. Clinchy, "Christians Must Seek the Cooperation of Other Faiths" in Dulles, etc.: A Righteous Faith, p. 36. f. On the National Council, see The Dan Smoot Report, vol. 10, no. 2, January 13, 1964, "National Council of Churches."

55"National Council's Message to the Churches," Presbyterian Life, vol. 17, no. 1, January 1, 1964, p. 26.

56The New York Times, Western Edition, Thursday. April 11, 1963, pp. 1, 5-7, Arnoldo Cortesi, "Pope Urges Formulation of World Nation to Insure Peace and the Rights of man."

57"Pacem in Tetris: an unexpected ally," interview with Father Joseph Walsh, in new university thought, Summer, 1963, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 17. For a contrary opinion of the encyclical, from a conservative, see Sister M. Margaret Patricia, "Justice Has Sprung From The Earth," 1963.

58Hector Pereyra-Suarez, "Blueprint for Religious Union," in Liberty, September-October, 1963, vol. 58, no. 5, p. 8.

59Ibid., p. 11, the concluding comment of Hector Pereyra-Suarez.

60Editorial, "A Story of Two Sermons," The Presbyterian Journal, vol. XXII, no. 33, December 11, 1963, p. 10.

61G. Aiken Taylor, "A Theology for the NCC," The Presbyterian Journal, vol. XXII, no. 35, December 25, 1963, p. 8.

62Sigmund Livingston: Must Men Hate? p. 1. Cleveland: Crane Press, 1944, revised edition.

63Claude Lewis: Adam Clayton Powell, p. 124. New York: Gold Medal Books, 1963. Lewis a Negro and a Newsweek reporter, speaks of Powell as "a brilliant man who might have become a Messiah." p. 127. Lewis, lacking the consistency of thought which characterizes Powell, fails to recognize the logic and integrity of Powell's position, which one can surely dissent with, while recognizing its clarity of structure and thought.




Copyright 1965, Rousas John Rushdoony. Reprinted with permission. All Rights Reserved. Originally found in The Nature of the American System.