Religion and freedom of speech

[DMB]

The UN Human Rights Council has for a number of years been dominated by a group calling itself the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and their allies. Under their influence, for the past ten years UNHRC and its predecessor have passed resolutions against what they refer to as "defamation of religion", and they have even managed to get the UN General Assembly to do the same. This sort of thing is nonsense, because human rights are for people, not for religions. The only religion they really want to protect is Islam.

See this article about the latest attempt:

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1314451&ct=6831061

Proposal at U.N. to criminalize 'defamation of Islam'

...While non-binding, the resolution constitutes a dangerous threat to free speech everywhere. It would ban any perceived offense to Islamic sensitivities as a "serious affront to human dignity" and a violation of religious freedom, and would pressure U.N. member states -- at the "local, national, regional and international levels" -- to erode free speech guarantees in their "legal and constitutional systems."

It's an Orwellian text that distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech, and religious freedom, and marks a giant step backwards for liberty and democracy worldwide.

...Ultimately, it is the very notion of individual human rights at stake, because the sponsors of this resolution seek not to protect individuals from harm, but rather to shield a specific set of beliefs from any question, debate, or critical inquiry.

To give you an idea of how bad the UNHRC is, NGOs have been told that they cannot mention Sharia law when discussing abuse of human rights. And yet it is very clear that Sharia law is abusive of the human rights of women and non-Muslims.

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

They could stand to take a cue from online message boards which have rules that ideas/beliefs can be attacked, challenged and taken apart all we like, just don't do that to people.

Alas, as simple as it may sound in theory, it would not seem to be uncommon that people have a hard time separating their sense of SELFHOOD from the IDEAS that, in whole or in part, for better or worse, SHAPE that sense of SELFhood in them. Perhaps we oversimplify when we expect everyone to automatically know how to make that distinction. If human beings seem that emotionally invested perhaps this division or distinction does not come so easily to them.

[DMB]

They could stand to take a cue from online message boards which have rules that ideas/beliefs can be attacked, challenged and taken apart all we like, just don't do that to people.

Alas, as simple as it may sound in theory, it would not seem to be uncommon that people have a hard time separating their sense of SELFHOOD from the IDEAS that, in whole or in part, for better or worse, SHAPE that sense of SELFhood in them. Perhaps we oversimplify when we expect everyone to automatically know how to make that distinction. If human beings seem that emotionally invested perhaps this division or distinction does not come so easily to them.

I think you are probably right about this in relation to a subset of believers, but the people who are pushing this in the Council are doing so for political reasons. Their reason for being members of the Council in the first place seems to be to deflect attention form the human rights abuses perpetrated in their countries. They use religion as a camouflage.

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

Oh yes, absolutely, without a doubt. Sorry, kinda got tangential with the whole message board reference there. :o

[tjakey]

Muslims who are trying to suppress challenges to their degenerate, mid evil ideology by hiding behind "defamation of religion" (as if there is anything true you can say about religion without defaming it) can kiss my white, middle class American ass.

I support unrestricted freedom of speech for anyone and everyone. Muslims can make any claim they like, and the rest of us can lay waste to it as often and as loudly as we please. In the open and unfettered arena of debate religion always loses in the end.

[DMB]

Bear in mind that this is by no means Muslims as a whole pushing this nonsense. In fact the chief victims of it are Muslims.

[Worldtraveller]

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. [Robert A. Heinlein, Postscript to Revolt in 2100]

[BioBeing]

Its reasons like this I think Bill Maher was right in Religulous, and why I took one of the closing lines of that movie for my sig.

[tjakey]

Bear in mind that this is by no means Muslims as a whole pushing this nonsense. In fact the chief victims of it are Muslims.

I realize that Islam's primary claim to fame is Muslims V Muslims; and that they are more lethal to each other than to any other group. (Gee, every cloud has a silver lining after all!) Still, (IMHO) the planet would be much better off if there were no Muslims in it anywhere.

[DMB]

I realize that Islam's primary claim to fame is Muslims V Muslims; and that they are more lethal to each other than to any other group. (Gee, every cloud has a silver lining after all!) Still, (IMHO) the planet would be much better off if there were no Muslims in it anywhere.

If by this you mean that it would be a better place if no-one were indoctrinated into any religious beliefs, I'd agree with you. But if you are implying that all Muslims are in some way worthy of being wiped out, I think it's monstrously unfair.

[tjakey]

I would love to see every vestige of Islamic thought crumble and fade from human society. Short of that, no one should be able to force their ideology on anyone or any group. Individual Muslims can putter around with their Koran, isolate themselves from women, art, music, education, science, health care, live ugly short lives, decry civilization at the top of their lungs, and die young after wasting their allotted bit of time on this planet. I don't really care so long as they can't inflict their miserable existence on anyone else.

Other groups live that way, (Quakers for example) and for the most part no one bothers them. Various sects of Christianity do the same. It is hard to image a life more wasted than that of a nun sequestered is some Abbot somewhere. Who knows how much has been lost to the rest of the world or what talents have been wasted? Yet no one, (at least not me) suggests that Quakers or Nuns should be wiped out.

Right now though, its hard to ignore the fact that Islam is a serious threat to the future of human kind and to modern civilization. Just how much of a threat should we tolerate?

[DMB]

I agree that Islamism (political Islam) is a threat to everybody. But fundamentalist Judaism and Christianity can also have very unfortunate political consequences. I really don't see that cultural Islam is a threat, except insofar as it leads harmless Muslims to have knee-jerk protective reactions when they are persuaded that Islam or fellow Muslims are under threat.

Part of the danger we are in is due to the attempted appeasement of Islamists by western political leaders.

[dancer_rnb]

I agree there are big problems with SOME sects of Islam.

And I fear tjakey will want to go after the Jews next.....

[tjakey]

Easy there dancer, I'm not "after" anyone at all. What I loath is those who use their religion as an excuse to go "after" others, including me.

As for "cultural" Islam, or some of the other sects of Islam (as dancer might put it) I am a bit puzzled. So far as I can see Islam in all of its various disguises oppresses women to a point that would be intolerable if any other group were to be treated in like manor.

Even here in the US, just blocks from my house in a major US city, the Islamic Mosque (a building they rent from a Catholic University; weird) has a separate back door that the women must use. Can you imagine the howls of protest if they tried that with African Americans or gay people? The way Islamic countries treat women is as bad as how South Africa treated Black Africans during apartheid, yet the US utters not a word of serious protest. And many in the US defend "cultural Islam."

Islam, if it could, would openly oppress slightly more than half the population of the planet based on sex alone. An oppression that includes no access to education, severe restrictions on travel and social interactions, arranged marriages based on payment (How is that not slavery?) sexual abuse, and honor killings. How is that even remotely acceptable to any civilized individual? The West's cowardly, cringing silence and fear of calling Islam to task for this appalling abuse of civil liberties is just astounding; nothing short of craven.

[DMB]

Tjakey, I have been involved in this since the mid-1990s. I am very well aware of how Islam abuses the human rights of women. All fundamentalist religions do to a greater or lesser extent. I recommend this book (http://www.amazon.com/Religious-Fundamentalisms-Human-Rights-Women/dp/0312293062/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237916405&sr=1-1)for a good overview.

I have quite a few friends who are campaigning ex-Muslims, and many of them are courageous women. But I also know a few reformist Muslims. I might prefer OTW that they abandoned Islam altogether, but in the end it is their choice. I feel much the same about Catholics for Choice (http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/). I know some of them too, and often wonder why they don't just walk away from the RCC.

But there is real value in reformers. We are never going to convert the whole world to atheism, so I cheer on their attempts to draw the rotten teeth from their religions.

[dancer_rnb]

Would Benazir Bhutto have been considered a muslim reformer?

[DMB]

Would Benazir Bhutto have been considered a muslim reformer?

Not in my book!

[tjakey]

DMB, you and I are clearly on the same side, I just use a bit harsher language. (Part of the fun of forums like this one.) I am completely puzzled by any woman who remains Muslim or Catholic. (Given that they live in a society where they can make the choice without risking their lives.) And I fully agree that a reformed religion, (assuming they are reformed by modern, enlightened, tolerant thought) is better than a fundamentalist one. Still, (IMHO) neither a fundamentalist religion or a reformed religion is as good as a dead religion. Who's afraid of Thor any more?

[Brother Daniel]

* dodges lightning bolts *

[Garnet]

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u32/Garnet2727/Smileys/Thor.gif

[Hex]

And here's a good reasoning as to why the UN proposal is a bad idea ...

0aFEBWjJYs0

[dancer_rnb]

I'm inclined to think the UN having any sort of power to enforce this kind of thing is a bad idea.

[DMB]

Thanks, Hex, for that interesting video.

[Mung Dynasty]

That is a good one. I'll be posting that in a few places.