Dear Friends[sic],

I want to talk to you this month about what could be the most important topic I've addressed in many years. This matter has profound implications for the institution of the family and for what we have called "the defense of righteousness," yet it will not be covered adequately by the secular press. Thus, I'm asking that you give particular attention to the words that follow, even if you don't often read my written comments. The events about to unfold on the world scene are almost beyond comprehension.

From Aug. 30 to Sept. 15, 1995, delegates from more than 170 sovereign nations will attend the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China. It will represent the most radical, atheistic and anti-family crusade in the history of the world, and your own government is pulling the strings and supporting a disproportionate share of the costs. The extremists who are preparing for and promoting this conference are a million miles outside the American mainstream, and yet they will be speaking in Beijing with the authority of the United States government. The more I learn about what these radical feminists want to impose on the human family, the more appalled I am that so few churches, Christian magazines and religious radio stations have chosen to alert our citizens to the implicit danger. It is a mystery, in fact, how such enormous threats to our spiritual and cultural heritage could have slithered into our midst without due notice or alarm.

Make no mistake about it: most of what Christianity stands for will be challenged during this atheistic conference. Every good and perfect gift from the hand of the Creator will be mocked and vilified by many of its delegates. That is their agenda. That is their program. And if they have their way, the family as it has been known since antiquity will cease to exist. Let me try to spell out what is about to occur on the other side of the globe.

First, consider where this international event will be held. No country on earth has abused and oppressed more women than China, with its forced abortion policy and its "one child per family" law. This is a nation that monitors menstrual cycles so it can identify young women with unapproved pregnancies and drag them into medical clinics to have their babies killed. It is also a country that has murdered tens of millions of female infants.

So effective has been its bias against the feminine gender that the sex-ratio in large regions of China favors males by 64 percent.[1] What irony, then, that the people who have annihilated their little girls will host a conference on the betterment of women. What breathtaking wickedness! And to their shame, President Bill Clinton and his First Lady, Hillary, have committed the resources of the United States government to this travesty. Indeed, at the same time of this writing, Hillary was the likely chairperson to lead the American delegation to China. [2] Sending a delegation to China should be unthinkable for two other reasons. First, Sen. Jesse Helms, chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, held hearings in May to investigate a deeply disturbing practice occurring inside China. A half-dozen witnesses testified that the Chinese government is satisfying its needs for hard cash by executing young prisoners and then "harvesting" their organs while their bodies are still warm. Sue Lloyd-Roberts, a BBC reporter, and Harry Wu, who spent 19 years in China's forced labor camps, showed the senators a shocking videotape of the actual executions. (I also saw a similar videotape while in Scotland three years ago.) Standing nearby were surgical vans and medical teams waiting to cannibalize the bodies just moments after death. The organs thus extracted are sold at black-market prices to Westerners desperate for kidneys, hearts, livers, corneas, etc. Who knows how this lucrative market for body parts has influenced China's inclination to kill young men and women accused of various minor offenses? Even without this financial incentive, prisoners have been executed historically for simply disagreeing with their government. Mr. Wu reported that he witnessed such an execution of a fellow inmate in 1970 who had merely written "Down with Chairman Mao" on a cigarette pack.[3] (Late information: In early May, Wu was arrested in Northern China and charged with espionage and high treason. If convicted, he will be sentenced to death.)[4]

If that isn't enough to turn one's stomach, consider this: According to World (which also reported the practice described above), human fetuses have begun to appear on menus of Chinese restaurants as a delicacy and health tonic. This account was cited:

"To investigate widespread rumors that unborn human beings were being sought and eaten to improve complexions and promote general well-being, an Eastern Express reporter on March 1 entered the state-run Shenzhen Health Center for Women and Children and requested a fetus for a feigned illness. A female doctor told the reporter the department had run out of fetuses, but to come back.

"The next day, according to the paper, the reporter returned at lunch time. The doctor eventually emerged from the operating theater holding a fist-sized glass bottle stuffed with thumb-sized fetuses. She said, 'There are 10 fetuses here, all aborted this morning. You can take them. We are a state hospital and don't charge anything. Normally we doctors take them home to eat[--]all free. Since you don't look well, you can take them."'[5]

It is incredible that the Clinton administration has not only approved U.S. support for a conference on women's rights in such a country, but it has also granted "most favored nation" trade status to it as well. According to the President, there is no connection between China's abuse of human rights and our economic policies. All that matters, apparently, is that we profit financially from the relationship.

Since the issue of whether or not to go to China is no longer debatable, we must ask what the conference organizers hope to accomplish while they are there? What is their agenda? What can we anticipate during those 17 fateful days? To answer these questions, we should look first at who is representing us. The official U.N. Document which will be promoted in Beijing was written by a virtual who's who of radical feminists. Chief among them is that veteran sexist warrior, Bella Abzug. Abzug headed the infamous International Women's Conference in Houston which was designed to destroy the family back in 1977. We can thank President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalyn, for turning that government-sponsored event over to the likes of Abzug, Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda and Betty Friedan. Watching them on television as they ripped into everything I believed actually motivated me to join the pro-family movement. When President Carter announced his follow-up White House Conferences on the Family two years later, I said to myself, "Not this time, sir. Not this time!" So what a surprise, 18 years later, to see many of the same revolutionaries making even more outrageous plans for the family.

Abzug is a strange choice to be in charge of anything these days. The Washington Times referred to her as "a fixture in old left activism." She was an avid supporter of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin during her days at Hunter College, and she led rallies for the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War.[7] Referring to the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, she said, "God forbid, or Goddess forbid, [that] he should lose."[8] She resigned as a congresswoman to run for the U.S. Senate, and lost.[9] She ran for mayor of New York City and finished third in a primary race.[10] Then she ran again for Congress and lost.[11] Her views are so far off base even the liberal media often ignore them. Nevertheless, this woman, a radical to the core who represents only her leftist cohorts, has become our official spokesperson on morals and the family. She has told us what kind of person

[missing?]

mankind, of course. It contradicts Genesis 1:27, which reads, "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." It also ignores the words of Jesus, who said, "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female...." Then He said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh" (Matthew 19:4-5).

In this instance and so many others, the draft document to be promoted in Beijing is utterly disdainful of the King of kings and Lord of lords. But before casting Him aside as irrelevant, our delegates should take a look at the Scripture that warns, "Do not be deceived; God cannot be mocked." (Galatians 6:7).

3. The primary objective in Beijing will be the same as a similar event held last year in Cairo, Egypt. That conference was designed to promote safe-sex ideology, condom usage and "reproductive rights"," (i.e., free and unrestricted access to abortion) in every nation of the world.

That was another scary time for the family. It looked as though the Clinton administration and the radical feminists would spread their revolutionary idea around the world. Indeed, there was very little opposition to them. Leaders of most evangelical denominations sat on the sidelines, 6,000 miles away, and ignored the storm clouds gathering in Cairo. Thanks almost entirely to the opposition of Pope John Paul II and many other Roman Catholic leaders, the goals of the radicals were not achieved. Rather than giving up, however, they simply regrouped and began preparing for a final putsch in Beijing.

In coercing reluctant countries to adopt feminist ideas about abortion and safe-sex ideology, a carrot-and-stick approach will be used. United States aid programs for underdeveloped nations will be linked to the willingness of foreign governments to implement these "population control" measures. Those that balk, including predominately Islamic and Catholic nations, will be threatened with reduced foreign aid. This coercion is deeply resented in many areas of the world where people perceive the United States as the 800 pound gorilla throwing its weight around. They also complain that they can't get help in developing clean water supplies and medical support, but they can get condoms by the millions[--]whether they want them or not.[17] Indeed, President Clinton has requested $635 million in the 1996 budget for international population control and another $400 million at home![18] And, that's your tax money they're using to kill babies and give condoms to kids.

By the way, President Clinton recently repeated his campaign statement that "abortion should be safe, legal and rare." How can he utter those farcical words at the very moment he is involved to his eyeteeth in the promotion of abortion in every nation on earth?

4. Homosexual and lesbian rights are central to the philosophy driving the conference. The Lesbian Caucus played a prominent role during meetings of the "preparation committee" at the United Nations. The Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission also issued a declaration which reads, in part, "We, the undersigned, call upon the Member States to recognize the right to determine one's sexual identity; the right to control one's own body, particularly in establishing intimate relationships; and the right to choose if, when, and with whom to bear or raise children as fundamental components of all human rights of all women regardless of sexual orientation."[19]

Relating again to "the deconstruction of gender" described above, the goal is to give members of the human family five genders from which to choose instead of two. When freed from traditional biases, a person can decide whether to be male, female, homosexual, lesbian, or transgendered. Some may want to try all five in time. Homosexuality is considered the moral equivalent of heterosexuality.[20] For women, however, the preferred love relationship is lesbian in nature. In that way male oppressiveness can be negated. Artificial insemination is the ideal method of producing a pregnancy, and a lesbian partner should have the same parenting rights accorded historically to biological fathers. [21]

5. Finally (and there is much more I can't cover in this letter), the official draft document is extremely hostile to religion[--]especially that which gender feminists have demonized as "fundamentalists." By fundamentalists, they refer to Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and any other persons whose religious views contradict feminist dogma. Nothing, they say, has done more to oppress women or limit their aspirations than these patriarchal religious beliefs and teachings. Unbelievably, the people who are representing our great nation in Beijing are openly antagonistic to what most of you and I believe with all our hearts.[22]

Now, some of my readers might ask, "So what? Why does it matter if a group of radical feminists assemble in faraway China to discuss their kooky ideas? What harm can they do?" The danger associated with the conference is linked to the unprecedented influence of the United States in world politics. Remember that 170 nations will be represented there. Imagine the damage that can be done around the globe if the credibility of this wonderful country, with all its resources and power, is used to undermine the family, promote abortion, teach immoral behavior to teenagers, incite anger and competition between men and women, advocate lesbian and homosexual behavior, and vilify those with sincere religious faith. This is Satan's trump card if I have ever seen it.

Remember, too, that people from underdeveloped nations don't understand that the Clinton administration does not represent the majority of the American people on these radical positions. They will see Madeline Albright, our representative to the United Nations, Timothy Wirth, our assistant secretary of state, Vice President Al Gore, and perhaps the First Lady herself leading the parade to Beijing. What is the international community to assume but that the most powerful and respected nation on earth has endorsed a new understanding of human relationships. Furthermore, they will quickly recognize that foreign aid is dependent upon going along with the politically correct program.

Knowledgeable conservative writers are beginning to recognize the scope of the threat at our door. One of them, Dale O'Leary, has studied gender feminist ideology extensively. She wrote the following:

To the average person the Gender Feminist agenda appears as pure nonsense. How could anyone sincerely believe that society could do away with family, impose 50/50 quotas on all activities, eliminate motherhood, and institute polymorphous perversity? Five years ago people laughed at the suggestion, but those who have been exposed to the influence of the Gender Feminist agenda aren't laughing anymore.

Many mothers, who sent their lovely daughters off to college to prepare for careers, are weeping, because their daughters have come home with lesbian lovers. An April 26, 1995, article entitled 'Dating Game Today Breaks Traditional Gender Roles,' which appeared in the Wall Street Journal reported on a growing number of young women coming out of U.S. universities where they have been indoctrinated in women's studies programs who are engaging in sexual relations with women and men. Included is a report on Ms. Anji Dickson who can't decide whether to marry her boyfriend or grow old with a woman.

...in Ms. Dickson's generation young women openly enter into intimate relationships with both genders that are more than just experiments. They resist being described as straight or gay[--]or even bisexual, which some think suggests promiscuity and one-night stands.

[missing?]

in New York Harbor on June 6, 1993.[25] These women had made the long and perilous journey to our shores to escape forced abortion in their homeland. They requested asylum as permitted by an existing U.S. immigration policy which granted shelter to those who had fled from forced abortions, forced sterilization, or other forms of persecution associated with coercive population control programs. These 180 frightened women clearly met the provisions of this long-standing policy, but the Clinton administration was unsympathetic to their plight. After all, the President favors population control efforts around the world, and he had no intention of harboring refugees from its oppression. Thus, he reversed our immigration policy in August 1994 and placed the women in various prisons and jails around the country.[26] They remain there to this day, except for 15, who were scheduled on June 23, 1995, to be granted temporary asylum in Quito, Ecuador. Presumably, the remaining women will soon be returned to China where they will face an angry and embarrassed government. (A late development: Our State Department has denied, at least temporarily, permission for the 15 Chinese women to be sent to Ecuador![27] And... the Immigration and Naturalization Service has just torpedoed Rep. Chris Smith's (R-N.J.) efforts to invite the Chinese women to testify at Congressional hearings.[28] How do you spell C-O-V-E-R U-P?)

The civil rights organization Voice for Life recently issued the following statement about the immigrants: "While all the Chinese refugees had hoped to live in freedom in the United States, they are all exhausted from their extended period of incarceration, and they are tired of being treated like criminals."[29]

Let me see, now[--]what are the words engraved on the Statue of Liberty standing a short distance from where the Golden Venture ran aground? Don't they say, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."?

This travesty reminds me of the large contingent of desperate Jews who sailed away from Nazi Germany in 1939, only to be denied immigration in the United States. No country would accept them, and they were eventually shipped back to Germany to face Hitler's gas chambers.[30] It was one of the most shameful acts in U.S. history. The rejection and incarceration of 180 Chinese women today is almost as reprehensible. But... support for world population control is the official policy of this administration, and it has no sympathy for those who flee from it! So onward to Beijing we go!

A footnote to the sordid story related above: Can we forget that in 1993, just before the immigration policy was changed to exclude those fleeing forced abortion, the Clinton administration fought hard for HIV-infected patients to be granted admittance to this country. Congress overruled the President by an overwhelming vote. I guess it comes down to this: Contagious HIV patients: "Yes." Oppressed Chinese mothers: "No way!"

Despite the distressing news I have shared, I hope you won't get discouraged. This band of left-wing radicals that is heading up our delegation to Beijing does not represent the great American people. The insanity of their agenda is not on the ascent[--]it's on its way out. Our country is becoming increasingly conservative, not more liberal. Indeed, the conference in China may represent the twilight of an outrageous idea that has run its course at home. If we can just keep the ultra-liberals from exporting their failed policies around the world, there may be light at the end of the tunnel.

Before resorting to panic, therefore, we must remember Whom we are working for! I was reminded of that good news after a church service Shirley and I attended last Sunday. A man I didn't know came up and shook my hand. Without even introducing himself he said, "I just attended a reunion of my family, and so many of my relatives said they were praying for you." With that, he began to cry and walked away. I was overwhelmed to realize that this man and his family had been on their knees, asking the Lord to bless and protect me and this ministry. I know there are thousands of other wonderful folks who are holding us up in prayer day after day. That is what keeps us going in these times.

In conclusion, let me remind you that it is expensive to send a delegation to China and to support all that Focus on the Family is committed to doing. We need your help to get the job done. And we'd like to hear from you when time permits.

God's richest blessings to you all.

Sincerely,

Reverand James C. Dobson
President

P.S. For the benefit of the skeptical, let me assure you that every word in this letter has been carefully documented. Nothing has been exaggerated or overstated. A quick examination of the official U.N. draft document will confirm the mess our government has created.

Endnotes

Go Back