Page Content (OCR)
China, who represent almost 50% of humanity with a joint population of almost 3 billion, would have a corresponding "voting power" of 50%. The US on the other hand, with only 300 million inhabitants, which only represents 5% of the world population, should have a voting power of only 5%, and the UK, with only 60 million inhabitants representing just 1% of the world population, should have a voting power of only 1%. But instead, the UN is ruled by a small group of rich western nations who represent less than 10% of humanity, especially those in the so called "security council”... If Bush, Blair and other leaders of imperialist, ex-colonial countries "W 1 1 1: 1 1 1 really want what they claim they want: to promote democracy, then they must accept a truly democratic UN. But the truth is that they don't really want it; what they really want is to continue ruling the world, both economically and spiritually. As my setting up of the ICACCI (International Committee Against Christian Calendar Imperialism - www.icacci.org ) pointed out, why is the UN, which is supposed to represent the whole of humanity, using the Christian calendar for all its official documents when only 25% of humanity is Christian? Why should Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists and Shintoists, etc. who each have their own calendar, be forced to sign UN papers using the Christian calendar? The UN could adopt a neutral calendar, using as year zero the year of its own inception or the year Hiroshima was bombed, as a symbol of peace. But instead, it still uses the Christian calendar which forces non-Christian countries, who happen to be the majority, to recognize Jesus’ supposed birth date when signing documents — without any sensitivity to the feelings of those whose forefathers were massacred, bonded into slavery or rampaged by crusades in the name of om Christianity. The UN has only two choices: completely change and become a truly democratic, non-religious organization or be destroyed and replaced by a truly neutral and democratic organization. Maybe the latter is the best solution, as it is always very difficult to change existing things. Maybe the new world body which would replace the UN will cost much less and be much more democratic: “made by the 362 INTELLIGENT DESIGN: MESSAGE FROM THE DESIGNERS