Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
If no one had criticized religion, we would still believe that the Earth was flat, we would never have come up with the idea of Science, we would believe there were only 3 continents, and we would still pay taxes to the Roman church. In fact, we would never see progress beyond that of the early medieval period.
since when has the UN followed up on anything it`s passed? breaking its regulations pretty much gets you a "don`t do that" and no action whatsoever.
although the US would probably do its own thing even if they enforced it.
"against defamation of religions" means ALL RELIGIONS, not just Islam! This means that the Christians would get the protection, the Pagans, the Jews, the Muslims, EVERYONE WHO FOLLOWS A RELIGION WOULD bE PROTECTED AGAINST DEFAMATION.
Personally, however, I think that the rant above can only apply in certain situations. The UN shouldn`t be treating the world like a child and slapping our hand when we reach for the cookies. The UN should be slapping our hand when we have a gun and threaten to kill someone if they don`t get a cookie.
Secondly, this is a GA resolution, which is not binding in any way. This resolution doesn’t force a country to do anything at all, so get over it. If it was a Security Council resolution it would be binding, but there is something called the veto, and I doubt any veto power nation would vote in favour of this.
Lastly, as to the comments here; Stop your UN conspiracy theories and figure out how it actually works before commenting.
CNN and people are idiots. I`ve only seen a handful of comments on here which are at least somewhat accurate.
First of all as to the CNN: The CNN states that the United Nations adopts an anti-blasphemy resolution. This is inaccurate, there is currently a resolution proposed IN the UN to do such a thing, this is NOT the UN trying to force countries to change their national laws for a number of reasons.
First of all, the resolution has been proposed by a number of member states, this is therefore an initiative from some countries in/to the United Nations, not by the United Nations itself. Claiming that the United Nations is trying to do this or that is ridiculous, seeing as it is an organisation representing the interests of numerous members. There is no `secret hidden UN agenda`. The CNN seems to be indecisive, alternating between stating that the UN is trying to force the United States to adopt anti blasphemy laws
I`ll put a 1 just because I`m so pissed off.
now, because he`s done nice things for you, you should just let that slide, right?
no, you would hold him accountable, and probably wont be his friend any longer, huh?
well, with this law, the U.N. seeks to steal MY freedom of speech.
i think the friendship is off.
Just because some of it`s members being up the idea of banning blasphemy, doesn`t mean the U.N. is bad and it doesn`t mean it will happen...
something tells me i wont be the only one.
I don`t claim to be an expert. And you may well know more about this than me, I can see why you may think that given Israel and the Osirak incident etc etc. But no. It would take something very unforeseen for that to happen. Although Israel bombing… I wouldn’t for a second put it past them.
Of course... the unforeseen happens all the time. That`s what makes life so exciting, and if you try to predict you will always be disappointed. But thinking through it methodically and thinking of possible future occurences in this regard, I think there are many other possibilities regarding Israel and the Middle East that are far more likely. Although none of them attractive.
I probably have a very un-healthy LACK of fear about nuclear weapons. I even see some major advantages in them. A world war three is highly unlikely, which is just as well or it would probably be of the kind you mentioned.
Be prepared, The writing is on the wall.
Especially since the word is "AFFECT" not "effect". Look it up.
The law accounts to ALL religions. Muslim and Christian.
Of COURSE. What a joke.
This means that the moment the floor yields to a member who criticizes Sharia, a point of order is called, and the speaker looses the floor. Got a problem with adulterers getting stoned? Too bad. That`s blasphemy. Got something against that suicide bomber quoting the Koran as justification for his murder? Why, that`s blasphemy old chap.
Of course, you won`t really see too much action when it comes to calling Jew "apes and pigs." You won`t see any crack down on Christians being threatened with death unless they convert to Islam. In fact, even hinting that this is even going on will be "blasphemy".
Makes me want to go buy a skid load of Danish Cartoon T-shirts.
They are talking out of their arses!!
Just for starters... there is no such thing as a binding GA resolution! If it gets passed, America doesn`t have to abide by it! The U.N is not going to make you do anything that goes against your constitution! The only way that such a new law would be binding would be if the Security Council made you guys do it for whatever reason (which they wouldnt, because it`s sitting pretty with its veto). Or, if America were to sign a treaty agreeing to it! Which it won`t.
Also... even if somehow was entrenched into customary international law. Which it won`t. It wouldn`t apply to America if America was a consistent objector. Which it would be.
In short... this is just something which has been brought out of all proportion, it isn`t even something new given provisions in the UCHR for protection of religion (its clearly something that they care about).
I think it`s completely off-topic. Sorry pat, this isn`t an Open Forum. Have you tried the I-A-B Chat?
Did anyone even bother to read the links on the first page of the forum about this? Anyone?
Dobby is faking it-again. Leaving out some important facts,distorting everything else with fear mongering/innuendo. Big surprise.
My original point was that: by making new resolutions to specifiy particular acts which are already covered, one is opening the door to additional denials not already covered. It is redundant if not changing. If it is changing, it will NOT make more of a difference than what is already written other than by weakening the original statements and furthering possibilities for additional limitations. These are the types of things that make the U.N. one of the worst examples of bureaucratic bull poop.
P.S. Tomatoes with salt is good, but subtract the salt, toss on some aged balsamic vinegar and fresh basil, and you`re freaking loving li
HEY! THE UN WILL.... your probably right
You have a generator of hate. You remove said generator of hate.
Hate ceases to be generated.
In what I believe to be the actual case: There will be anger against the removal, and then it will be forgotten.
Leaving the generator in place will generate hatred on a daily basis for 50 years. Easily.
On victory:Sorry, let me draw the parallel I`m making first. I`m suggesting blacks made an unpopular move which forced them to the forefront of society. Forcing integration and whatnot.
This gave people a chance to interact more with blacks and forced some recognition.
I agree this could be done with Arabs/Muslims, which is why I applauded "Little Mosque on the Prairie" and whatnot.
However, I also feel that we are living in a time where media fairness is more important and less tumultuous.
In addition, Blacks were outnumbered 10 to 1. Muslims are outnumbered 10 times that. Reasonable change may not be as accomplished in the exact same fashion, simply because you cannot expose enough Americans to Muslims except via media.
Media that is currently horrendously misrepresenting us.
Yes, my solution was silly. Your advice for Muslims to rise up against the oppressors no doubt will do nothing but foster great love between our peoples.
Also, it is not giving special protection under the law. For the trillionth time. It would apply to Jews in Islamic states as much as Hindus in Puerto Rico, to Christians in Jamaica, to Bhuddists in Papua New Guinea.
So your answer is censorship? What happened to my freedom of speech?
Take off the "Your Mom Gives Great Head" t-shirt??
Actually out of 8 Muslim friends I had living in the states in 2000, only 2 remain. In the UK, I moved back to Dubai along with my entire family.
Are you seriously suggesting that this is progress? Are you not familiar at *all* with the African American struggle in the US?
People stay in the UK in the US with the blind hope that you are what you say you are, or that if you are not you can be fixed.
Are you seriously suggesting there is no hope left for America? That is so depressing.
A fecking axe. Like in the term "axe murderer"? Although I never associated that with anything racist or islamophobic because I just sided with "crazy" on that front.
In primary school I was beaten up by Atheists for believing in God. The UK is not like the states, it is mostly secular.
In Scotland I was attacked by a plethora of people with whom I did not stop to have theological discussions with.
In Newcastle I was attacked by a drunk and a guy in an England Football shirt.
My Mother was attacked by a Christian the first time. Although who bricked the house windows and my dad`s car was unknown.
A Christian threw a brick at my sister.
Other than that again, theological discussions did not take place.
(Also, I`m suggesting here that hatred is created, not inherent. I`ve not met a racist newborn, as such, inciting discrimination and hatred could be a problem here).
I honestly don`t mind the criticism. I spent years dealing with people on Infidels.org (look in their archives, I have about 2000 posts/essays/ and even star in one of the short stories there).
But there is a fundamental difference between debating African culture and populating misinformation about them being cannibals and therefore not allowed in civilized society.
Damn those rowdy christians and their violent ways!
The fact of the matter is that if someone hates you because of your religion, it doesn`t matter weather either of you have `free speech` or not. If there is hate, there will be violence.
I think anything making it easier to convict people of hate crimes that are currently low on the radar of several countries is a good thing.
So far many people, including Pat Robertson:"These people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now: I believe it`s motivated by demonic power. It is Satanic and it`s time we recognize what we`re dealing with."
"When I said during my presidential bid that I would bring only Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?` the media challenged me. `You`re not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?` My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.`"
This isn`t a Muslim issue just because the video says it is. It is a tolerance issue.
So, we`re going into the whole americans are idiots thing again eh? Don`t you have this exact same problem in europe? please correct me if i`m wrong.
No. I didn`t say that. Even in the post you read to get that information, I didn`t say that.
drat it, here it is again:
"I mentioned an Atheist because the person I responded to mentioned an Atheist"
I would rather not wait for the lynchings any more than you would rather wait for the suicide bombers.
An Iranian cleric doesn`t have to tell anyone to become a suicide bomber, all he has to do is rile up enough rhetoric about America and there will be someone in his audience of thousands to do his dirty work somewhere along the lines.
It is beneficial to stop that cleric. There will be an endless supply of nutcases.
The UK has it`s fair share of nutcases. If we wait for every lynching there will be enough nutcases to last forever.
You do not *currently* have complete freedom of speech. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre unless there is a fire.
You don`t fight for the right to endanger people that directly. The only difference is you can`t see the connection this time. It`s still there.
Alright, so the UN isn`t full of bullshi1t... I take it back. But the point remains, if someone was ever to take away people`s right to free speech, it would spark and uprising and the people in power know it.
... oh and Balthazaq, are you saying you were beaten up by atheists? As amusing as that is, I don`t believe it for a second. In fact its the most ridiculous thing I`ve read all week.
There is a difference between free speech and allowing violence like that and its a pretty blatantly obvious difference that just about the entire world recognizes.
As I said, 3 times now, it means not a jot that you take offence. drat you. drat your mom. In the ass.
See? Not mattering. Take offence. Good for you.
The point is I`m not discriminating against you. I didn`t say "drat you because you`re atheist" "Hey look the atheists eat children" "Don`t hire atheists they`re lazy" "If we don`t do something about Atheists soon they`ll take over" etc.
And generally riling public sentiment against you to the point where you can`t walk outside without fear for your safety.
Simple difference:One you feel annoyed (admittedly, in your head somewhere). The other, you run the risk of being knifed or shot while shopping (again, possibly in the head, so I can see where the confusion lies).
If you thought the Christian whackos had massive power to pull together and put bullpoo into law...just think of what this Islamic dictatorship could do to the rest of the world....
Anyways, baalthazaq, i understand where you are coming from, and feel sorry for what`s happened. I had no idea it was that bad, sorry to sound ignorant. I have my doubts though, that this would truly stop people from doing these things, please explain how you expect it to help? Is it supposed to lessen the bad reputation that islam has? In which case isn`t that already libel and slander? and like someone else said, conspiracy to commit murder is also a crime, so i just don`t see this having much extra effect.
1) The UN is not banning criticism of religion any more than it is banning unicorn rights.
2) It is specifically discussing discrimination. As I said in the post you`re criticising. Read it again and again and again until it sinks in.
"drat you" - fine"Lets not give them jobs because they`re muslim" - Not. "Lets lynch them" - Not.
Understand yet? No?
Slotherder:Blame it on western law? Like I think The law specifies beating up Muslims? Obviously not.
I think there are not enough protections in place. I would suggest that I should at least drating KNOW a Muslim in the UK who hasn`t been discriminated against after living there 12 years, and as it stands I don`t.
I`m gonna go ahead and take that as a sign they aren`t doing enough.
I agree with sTuFFt... take away free speech and the world will descend into anarchy. As the reporter said, this must be stopped now. And I am pleased to see that just about everyone is against it as well.
I am not against talking about religion, or even criticizing it. If that`s what this law stated I would be against it.
So shut the drat up and deal with your own fantasies about what the UN is doing on your own time while the adults deal with the laws they`re actually writing down on paper.
Those that deal with discrimination, and not simple criticism.
You should not have been attacked simply because you are a Muslim. That is wrong. Those people should be tried and punnished accordingly. However, if you seek to erode the laws which protect your own liberties, you are attacking yourself, as well.
Education is the main problem, at least here in the united states. The predominately Christian society here is frightened by the idea of children learning about religions outside of their own. Ignorance creates fear and perpetuates this problem. If your so sure your religion is correct let your children learn about others and decide for themselves. They`ll have a stronger faith, and they won`t hate and fear by carrying on a legacy of ignorance.
It specifically states portions about discrimination, hatred and violence.
What if an atheist walked by trying to rally a crowd together to kill your family? Telling people where you lived? "Lets kill them while they sleep"?
This isn`t about who feels nicer. This is about my friend losing 8 teeth. This is about my mother being beaten with a cane. This is about my 6 year old sister being hospitalized by a thrown brick to the back.
That is the kind of prejudice that is being created here! This is not a matter of me being able to talk smack on an internet forum. This is real life deary, and whilst your idealist poo sounds good on IAB, in the real world, real people have to suffer for your bullpoo.
Furthermore, being a devote christian, I can go into Centre Square and start preaching from my bible until I can`t preach anymore. But if an athiest happened to wander by, and hear my preaching, he is not allowed to voice his opinion about my religion, whether it be a gentle, "Religion is wrong", or a harsh "Get the f*uck off the street, you ignorant buffoon! God does not f*cking exist!", he would be arrested, and I think that is wrong. Everyone has a right to their opinion and beliefs, and the right to defend their beliefs.
You`re doing great. Seriously. You haven`t got a fecking clue what freedom is if you think things are ok the way they are.
You`re protecting a Blood Libel. Nothing less.
yes, i purposely mispelled that. trying to bring about a point. because i know people won`t get the joke.
I hope that you`re being sarcastic. Otherwise, you`re faith in sacredness of the constitution is misguided.
"ala and mohommed get gay with each other."
Not that you really care, but I`m pretty sure it`s Allah and Muhammad.
Lou Dobbs version is sensationalist, and some of you are lapping it up like a bunch of Klan members hearing a new UN law being passed that says you can`t lynch n*ggers no more.
"Our rights are being violated!"
drat you! It`s not about "hurting people`s feelings". It`s about impacting their lives in exceptionally real and disgusting ways by creating a world in which they cannot live without retribution, for your right to tell lies.
It is good that you can`t spew endless bullpoo in the name of freedom of speech that promotes bigotry.
My sisters, brothers, cousins, mother, father, friends, should not have been stoned, beaten, chased, attacked, verbally and physically abused because of the bigotry that people are in bed with in the west.
It is revolting. Utterly revolting, and if you could see it, this wouldn`t be necessary. However saying as I`ve personally been attacked in the UK over a dozen times, and do not know a single person who can live in peace in the UK being brown skinned because prejudices are being protected it`s obvious it isn`t working.
Sorry if you can`t say n*gger no more, if it means my kids get to go outside. Boo. drating. Hoo.
Finish the job you started you inbreed bastard!
Please return to your regularly-scheduled programming (read: Alex Jones).
But yeah, it`s false people, get over it.
I think we can all learn from the Simpsons where Lisa gets everyone to write their own newspaper where they say anything they want after burns takes over all other media. This legislation makes me angry
then i read xposyas thank God
Oh thank goodness...
I thought the U.N. was like the number one group for that... This is VERY surprising to me.
Use of colors, words, flashes on the screen, words during transitions, use of speech, tone of speech, all of it.