The UN vs Right to Blaspheme
10 March 2009 by StardustLINK: Freedom Under Fire: U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution – With Christopher Hitchens
While we are usually focused on the Christian Religious Right here in the U.S., we should be more concerned with what is going on internationally with the muslims. Fundamentalist Muslims, with the help of the UN, are trying to get their way in controlling free societies by saying that their wittle feewings are being hurt when others criticize their religion. Their faith must be quite fragile if they need to make laws to attempt to silence the rest of us. This one even has Christians in a tizzy.(Though some Christians are mainly upset that their international brainwashing missions are threatened.)
The United Nations Anti-Blasphemy Resolution aims to curtail speech that offends religion, specifically Islam. Critics, religious groups and free speech advocates say the resolution is spreading Sharia law to the Western world. Christopher Hitchens joined Lou.
10 March 2009, on 12:35 pm
This is an indication that the UN has lost sight of its purpose. Eleanor Roosevelt (she chaired the committee that wrote the Universal Declaration of Rights of Man or whatever it’s called) must be spinning in her grave!
I heard this anecdote many years ago and I might have part of it wrong, but here goes: When Eugene Debs (I think it was Debs) tried to get his first book published he understandably took it to left-wing publishers. After his visit with a publisher, the FBI would step in and threaten the publisher if the book was actually printed. After many failures, Debs finally went to a publisher who was a staunch Republican. Again the FBI intervened. This publisher, however, became very angry and – so I heard – threw the agents physically out of his offices, yelling something to the effect of “how dare you tell me what I can and cannot publish! This is the U.S.A.!” Debs’ book was published shortly after.
I don’t know if that’s true, but it certainly illustrates one of the bedrock values we hold: freedom of speech must not be restricted. Ever.
The U.N. needs to be slapped down on this – taken to task, lectured, punished, harrassed, belittled, condemned, made a laughing stock.
10 March 2009, on 12:57 pm
I read about this a few months ago when they hid it in other U.N. business. It occurs to me that blaspheming one religion is just another religion’s statement of faith in their own particular flavor of belief. Much like the Catholic Church’s prayers that the Jews be forgiven and such. Also the articles of faith would play a big role in bringing challenges of blaspheme for one sect against another. It sure could get interesting.
I think the major U.N. big dogs are not going to allow it to go forward although the majority of nations have already voted in favor. Someone needs to tell those assholes to make forward progress not to get more draconian nor primitive.
10 March 2009, on 2:34 pm
I agree with the sentiments here, as you will see from my blog, I’m pretty disgusted with this story.
Howerver, there are a few points of contention, not with the story, or the comments, but the UN and this up-coming vote.
First: Is this going to be a general assembly vote? If so, it doesn’t matter if you storm off, it just means your vote isn’t counted.
Second: Is it a non-binding agreement as was the September resolution? That one meant that the UN couldn’t dicuss female Genital Mutilation on the grounds that most of the countries that practice it are islamic and may get offended (this was in the human Rights Assembly)
Third: Who cares? Did the UN stop Rwanda, Darfur, Afghanistan, Bush into Iraq? So how the hell are they going to even contemplate passing through laws at a local level.
Fourth (and possibly most important) : Who do you think the UN are? It’s an organisation/bureaocracy formed to protect the interests of the participating countries. There are no membership criteria I know of. It’s a centre for political horse-trading and protecting your national interests.
Don’t fool yourselves, if it was in the UK or US interests in some way, it’d be adopted like a shot.
It still may be.
JH
10 March 2009, on 3:12 pm
Jacques,
In answer to the second of your questions, this time around it is a binding resolution. I think (but am not totally sure) that this also answers your first question.
As far as your third query, the whole idea I guess is that if it is made a binding resolution, then it is up to each individual country to make their own laws following the resolution.
I would think that the answer from the USA would be “mind your own damn business, we don’t alter our constitution due to foreign pressure.”
As much as some right wing fundie politicians might want to go along with it, it would be political suicide here. Or so I fervently hope.
10 March 2009, on 5:14 pm
There is no god and the ridiculous ritualization of life is utterly meaningless unless you have some form of OCD or something.
I cannot believe the amount of time people spend just trying to get their idiot god beliefs recognized.
10 March 2009, on 6:45 pm
I think Jacques’s spot on: when has the US ever listened to the UN anyways? The problem’s a global one though (as we all know, American’s live in America, everyone else lives in the world) – this Neville Chamberlain nonsense needs to get shouted down, regardless of who’s behind it.
If it’s passed via a Security council, likelihood is good that it’ll get pushed/enforced.
10 March 2009, on 10:39 pm
Anyone who needs evidence that the UN has become dangerously misguided, need look no further than this push toward global theocracy. If all them Islamic prophets and the Big Guy are so all fucking powerful, why do they need the UN to oppress the rest of the world? Why not have skydaddy just instantly vaporize anyone who dares question this fairy tale that preaches violence and oppression? Maybe it’s time to pull out of the UN. We have enough of our own problems now.
10 March 2009, on 11:57 pm
A couple of things immediately come to mind RE this situation; which, I’ll admit, are not, at this point (d’uh!), probably even practical. Yeah…pie in the proverbial sky that absolutely “ain’t gonna happen”.
What the hell; no harm making suggestions…roit? [Humor me?]
1) Have some people like Hitchens, etc., address…perhaps even debate(?)…these deluded clowns at the UN. Hype it up, big time, on as many media outlets as possible. Broadcast, worldwide of course, on…CNN & Al Jazeera (sounds like a guys name!)…for “all” to see. In other words, make fools of these medieval idiots
2) This issue makes the getting off…TOTALLY…buying ANY oil from Islamic countries more important than ever. In essence, end, completely, any and all financial support of non-democratic governments. AND DEFINITELY…get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan…for good!
When are we gonna learn what the Russians learned back in the1980s?
[And what is the US doing, being the self-appointed, arrogant, "Policemen of the World", anyway?]
Speaking of Iraq…and Afghanistan…How the fuck long does it take to train these tribal level morons to do what American soldiers are taught to do…what!…in Boot camp? I know I’m being very simplistic; but these tribal idiots will never stop killing each other until they drop their belifs, throw all their Korans into dumpsters, and finally have a multi-national “Fuck that long dead & rotted, moronic, psychotic, pedophile asshole, Mo-hammered” bonfire party.
Oh wait!…We’d still have all the Born-again, Creationist, Bible idiots!
What to do?…what to do?…
OK…Make it a “Burn every fucking Holy Scripture EVER written in the World” Day!…
Or better yet…to avoid polluting the atmosphere with more CO2…
a “World-wide Recycle All Religious Claptrap Day”
Turn them, perhaps, into something useful…
like Porn?
What’s that, GifSters?…”Total Delusional Futility”; thy name is…
ChuckA?”
“Somehow (I’m channeling Hoffy?); I think youse guys are right!”
11 March 2009, on 2:11 am
Can we make today the official “Defamation of religion” day?
11 March 2009, on 12:44 pm
Geoff, every day is Defamation of Religion day as far as I am concerned. LOL!
Maybe we should start another category here for “Blasphemy” ?
12 March 2009, on 1:45 am
From the way muslims behave, one can only come to the conclusion that Allah (peanut butter sandwiches) is about the most needy, demanding and impotent diety. As Brooklyn Boy mentioned, why do Muslims have to do skydaddy’s dirty work for him?
As for this story–another illustration that cultural relativism is truly evil and can only lead to the ultimate distruction of liberal democracy. Free societies are so afraid to just call something “wrong,” they are allowing their freedom of thought and speech to be used to, ironically, destroy free thought and speech.
12 March 2009, on 11:25 am
Part of an article at
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9b8e3a6d-795d-440f-a5de-6ff6e78c78d5
ran this quote:
“Canada rejects the basic premise that religions have rights; human rights belong to human beings,” said Catherine Loubier, spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon.
“The focus (here) should not be on protecting religions, but rather on protecting the rights of the adherents of religions, including of people belonging to religious minorities, or people who may choose to change their religion, or not to practice religion at all.”
That being stated, Canada still has an anti-blasphemy law on its books already. Hasn’t been used in over 70 years though.
As the world becomes more of a global community these resolutions will have less ability to restrict freedoms. One thing the anti-blasphemy rules might do is make it more difficult for religions to sell their gospels in the public forum, since every religion steps on the toes of another religion. This could be good for atheists. “IMAGINE there’s no… religion.”
12 March 2009, on 11:33 am
One thing the anti-blasphemy rules might do is make it more difficult for religions to sell their gospels in the public forum
That’s mainly why the fundie Xians are against this resolution. They wouldn’t be able to go to Muslim countries and try to convert them. They aren’t concerned with human rights and free speech. If they could shut us atheists up and keep us from dissing XIanity here in the US, they would do it in a heartbeat. They are concerned about their own freedom to try to do their “missionary work” in other countries.
14 March 2009, on 9:51 am
Definitely thought-provoking. However, I would like to have seen a supporter of the resolution on Dobbs’ program, if only to see the person actually be forced to defend it in a public forum.
15 March 2009, on 3:29 pm
It would be entertaining to see someone try and defend such a bone headed resolution. I think Hitchen’s analysis was pretty entertaining though, plus his was motivated by logical thought! Those who think this is a non issue should think about the fact that sharia laws have already been enforced in the USA. I just hope and pray that the Pastafarians have contributed enough assets to these morons at the UN to have their saucy beliefs protected from those meanies who would dare to poke fun or critizize her holy meatballness.