Combating Defamation of Religions

[Zkribbler]

Can we still say bad things about the dirty jews?

No. No reason to say racists things about people.
But you may criticize religions.


From the article:

Islamic tradition forbids pictures of Muhammad, and Muslims claimed the caricatures were intended to insult their faith.

The cartoons were so obviously false, coarse, and disgusting, I saw them as a reflection on those who drew them and who published them, not on the Prophet.

It is too bad Muslims don't see their Prophet as being above such pettiness and nastiness. Their overreaction was far more harmful to their religion than were these vile cartoons.

[Traianvs]

I hoped my new avatar was as disturbing as I wanted it to be. Seems like my plan succeeded

It is too bad Muslims don't see their Prophet as being above such pettiness and nastiness. Their overreaction was far more harmful to their religion than were these vile cartoons.

Islam is professed with far greater fervour than most Christians in the west (excepting the fundies in the US and the North of Holland). It would go a long way if they could put their religion into perspective.

That religion, including islam, causes a lot of intolerance and problems is stating the obvious. Time to crack down on it!

[Impaler[WrG]]

Hasn't the U.N. made declarations pertaining to the rights/unjust suffering/plight of individual groups before? I don't buy this argument that a resolution has to be completely vanilla and devoid of any reference to real world groups or people for it to be just. The Islamic countries feel they are singled out for defamation by the west and particularly America, they are of course correct in this interpretation. You might throw it back in their face and say their bloody hypocrites who be-head people in their own countries for converting, and that too would be correct. But it doesn't change the core principle here, is defamation of religion something that should be curbed. I hold to the standard used in the U.S. that of the clear and present danger, aka only speech that is an immediate incitement of violence can be censored. The infamous Dutch cartoons don't fit that description and the Dutch newspapers arn't going to get censored because of this resolution.

[BeBMan]

The Islamic countries feel they are singled out for defamation by the west and particularly America, they are of course correct in this interpretation.

I don't think Islamic countries *per se* are singled out for defamation. Just because they might feel like it doesn't make it true.

[notyoueither]

Otoh, I'd support any resolution against avatars with pink backgrounds hurting people's eyes

There is a relatively easy solution.

[Elok]

Oh no, a UN resolution! Because, y'know, those are incredibly powerful things...somehow...or maybe not. Yeah, I don't think this actually matters. At all.

[Ben Kenobi]

I thought the UN was supposed to be a force for progress?

Time to scrap it.

[The Mad Monk]

Oh no, a UN resolution! Because, y'know, those are incredibly powerful things...somehow...or maybe not. Yeah, I don't think this actually matters. At all.

Cool. We can save our dues, then.

[DinoDoc]

Is this the Anti-Dawkins(/Apolyton?) Resolution?

[Nikolai]

I can't believe there are civilized nations that still haven't backed out of Durban II. What are you guys waiting for?

I don't know for other civilized countries, but Norway's retarded government consist of idealistic sofa socialists in love with the failing multi-culturalist agenda. Their strategy is simple: Dialogue, make the society anti-religious; read anti-Christian, dialogue, dialogue, appease islamsists, dialogue, tell the public there is no radical islam, dialogue, repeat ad infinitum.

[DaShi]

Can we still say bad things about the dirty jews?

Yes, but only at the UN.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Can we still say bad things about the dirty jews?

It's my fond hope that Israel uses this resolution to tie up all the UN's time with endless complaints about the defamation of Judaism in the Arab world.

[Zevico]

I thought the UN was supposed to be a force for progress?

Time to scrap it.

Why not just 'scrap' Illinois for Blagodevich? The UN isn't just a place for messed up countries to hypocritically whine about human rights. That's the part that winds up on the news, but it's not all of what it does.
That said, I would definitely scrap the Human Rights Council, the Security Council, and the resolution-making powers of the General Assembly. Security Council resolutions are meaningless, and GA resolutions are even more meaningless [if that's possible]. Ditto the HR Council.

[Dinner]

There is a difference between one corrupt guy who gets kicked out of office and having the world's worst human rights abusers controlling the supposed UN Human Rights commission.

[Provost Harrison]

Well if the West is against the idea they should withdraw. I mean, let us be honest, the thing will collapse if most of the economic clout of the world boycotts it. I can't see Russia or China being that fussed on it either...