U.N. rights body condemns “defamation” of religion
Holy shit. These guys are seriously talking about making it illegal to defame religion? What. The. Fuck.
Basically, this would mean you cannot say anything negative about any religion. Since nothing in any religion can be proven, anything negative claim can be declared “false” by the religious nutjobs out there. This is one of the worst precedents in the violation of free speech I’ve ever seen. What the hell is this U.N. council thinking? I can’t believe more countries voted in favor than opposed. Fucking madness.
Fuck religion. It’s a bunch of delusional bullshit by people who are too scared to face their own mortality. Deal with it.
U.N. rights body condemns “defamation” of religion
GENEVA (Reuters) – The United Nations top human rights body condemned “defamation” of religion on Friday and, in an apparent reference to the storm over the Prophet cartoons, said press freedom had its limits.
With the support of China, Russia and Cuba, Moslem and Arab states comfortably won a vote on the 47-state Human Rights Council to express concern at “negative stereotyping” of religions and “attempts to identify Islam with terrorism”.
“The resolution is tabled in the expectation that it will compel the international community to acknowledge and address the disturbing phenomena of the defamation of religions, especially Islam,” said Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
The resolution was opposed by Western states which said it focused too much on Islam. The job of the Council was to deal with the rights of individuals not religions, they said.
“The European Union does not see the concept of defamation of religion as a valid one in a human rights discourse,” a spokeswoman for the delegation of Germany, which holds the EU presidency, told the Council.
The resolution urged countries to ensure their laws gave adequate protection against acts of “hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions”.
While everybody had the right to freedom of expression, this should be exercised according to limitations of the law and respect for others, including respect for religions and beliefs, it said.
In 2006, violent protests rocked cities from Morocco to Malaysia over Danish cartoons of Islam’s Prophet Mohammad published in September 2005, which Muslims regarded as sacrilegious and an attack on their beliefs.
The vote was 24 countries in favor of the resolution, 14 against and with 9 abstentions.
Nov 18, 2008 @ 14:48:56
All thats really being asked is for people to have a bit of respect for each other. Its not alright to take the mickey out of someones deepest beliefs. As a christian (and yes I can write a sentence without swearing unlike some folk on here) I’m not asking you to agree with me, just show some basic respect. I’m sure members of other religions feel that this is also the case, the purpose of the media is to inform and entertain, not cruelly humiliate people or ideals for no good reason. Examine them yes, but respectfully.
This websites stand on ‘banning religion’ is an interesting one, several ex-world dictators have tried to do the same (Stalin, pol-pot etc.) and their countries have become not very nice places. By proclaiming ‘ban religion’ this also contravenes basic human rights to freedom of expression and is not better than a religion not tolerating your rights to be atheist.
This world vitally needs people to understand each other better if we are to live in peace, ranting angrily and in somewhat purile terms ‘ban religion’ is a waste of time and completely immoral. Peoples own faith is far to dear to them + something that many would die for. Besides which, what about all the good that religions have inspired? They all teach people to live in peace and love with one another, to forgive, to look after the poor, to trade fairly with your fellows. Capitalism hasn’t really inspired these values has it, look at all the greed that been let loose and is ruining our world.
God Bless you all,
R
Nov 18, 2008 @ 15:20:52
Richard, you’re new to this whole atheism thing, aren’t you? Let’s look at these three statements.
1. Your religion is stupid.
2. You are stupid.
3. You deserve to die because of your religion.
When is it okay to voice any of these opinions?
1. Anytime.
2. Anytime.
3. Never.
Respect doesn’t enter into it. Freedom of speech and thought does. As for human rights, no human has the right to not be offended.
Nov 18, 2008 @ 17:16:22
Yeah I’ll respect religion the day it respects me for not conforming to it’s beleifs.
Atheists cop it. All the time.
Because we don’t have a belief system in place and people are so scared of that, they criticize us.
So no, I will not respect a religion that doesn’t respect me, other people or even it’s own people.
I became an atheist because I was sick of the lack of respect.
Nov 20, 2008 @ 11:16:16
Richard,
While on the surface your arguments seem valid, you’re missing some basic points. I’ll be happy to show respect to someone, like yourself, who affords me the same. Unfortunately, it seems that folks like you are in the minority. GHW Bush himself said that atheists shouldn’t be considered citizens. Atheist itself has become a kind of epithet in its own way. Wasn’t there a race in Georgia this November in which one candidate had to violently respond to another’s claim that she was “godless”? It’s considered the most despicable campaign put on for that reason. Why? It’s okay to say Obama wants to kill babies, but call someone “godless” and you’ve gone too far? Seriously?
Next you trot out the old standbys of Stalin and Pol-pot. You ignore Hitler who committed his actions in the name of the Christian god. (Godwin’s law has been fulfilled!) Jim Jones. Osama bin Laden. Abdul Hamid. One can easily trot out dozens of examples of religious rule that has led to just as extreme examples of devastation and genocide. You also choose to ignore Norway, a country that is 86% atheist and is number one in most of the standards of living in the entire world.
Finally, you bring to bear the concepts of “can’t we all just get along” and “look at all of the good religion has done”. To the first, I’d be happy to. In my experience, atheists get along with each other very well. It’s when you get two people with differing superstitions that you have trouble. Just look at the Jews and Muslims. Hell, 90% of their religion is the same, but they’re still willing to wipe each other off the map. But, no one wants to “ban religion”. If you want to have faith in something that doesn’t exist, that’s fantastic, but you don’t get to tell me I have to, nor do you get to advance it in the public discussion of national policies. To paraphrase Hitchens: you end up with people who have access to 21st century methods of mass destruction being guided by bronze age philosophies. An eye for an eye takes on new meaning when you have nuclear capability.
As to the “good” done by religion: could you provide some examples? Genocide is typically done under religious auspices. Slavery, at least in the US, kept its hold for so long because of religious belief that it was right and proper. Religious folks are still oppressing gays and non-religious types. That’s all not to mention the evisceration of the educational system all in an attempt to train more children in religious doctrines like creationism.
I’m sure you’ll be able to bring plenty of examples to bear, so before you do I offer you this one warning: they must be examples of the good done by RELIGION, not examples done by religious individuals. Religions like to claim, falsely, that they are the bastions of morality and without them the world will fall into anarchy. The fact is, people are born with an internal, instinctual moral compass and don’t need someone to tell them right from wrong. There are exceptions, we call them sociopaths, but those people have a problem. On the whole, people are good and do good things. If religion were to disappear tomorrow, nothing would change except the violence in the world would go way down. An example of a person doing some good in the name of religion is not indicative of anything more than that person being good, not the religion being good.
Nov 20, 2008 @ 14:46:03
The UN is a sad entity defending the interests of the corrupt politicians that get in bed with the corrupt elite of the UN… it’s a business (tax free) for all the monkeys working in NY or Geneva.
Sound hypocritical from “religions†to be demanding RESPECT from atheist……. When we are called so many defamatory names!!!!
I have no problem respecting someone like Richard witch shows an elevated discussion speech…. But despite all that, as a former catholic that went to a jesuit HS and college, how can I be respectful of such funny and ridiculous stories found in “holy books�
How can I be respectful of people that believe that Mohammed owned a horse either with wings or a turbine that could fly him for a chit chat with zeus, aka as allah?
How can I believe that a sorcerer was able to bring back dead people to the world, turn water into wine, manufacture fish & chips with the words hokus pokus, and after getting killed (despite him being eternal and not subject to life and death) comes back to life after 3 days (again curiously if u do the math according to the scriptures he comes back sooner)…… I mean, I can try to be respectful, but how can anyone expect me to be respectful if their beliefs are so damn funny………
Nov 20, 2008 @ 20:15:53
Interesting selection of comments, cheers guys! Well, I would certainly agree with you that atheists are just as deserving as people of faith for respect and I’m no great fan of GWB (I find it a bit of a double standard that he’s against abortion, but does nothing to ban porn or get the fathers to take more responsibility – but thats a whole different kettle of fish).
I fully accept that there has been a lot of wrong done in the name of religion, and I would hasten to say that faiths do not have some kind of moral monopoly, I just want to see a balanced argument that doesn’t vilify religion for no good reason. It is also important to add that fundamentally religion/lack of doesn’t cause wars, it is human selfishness/greed/lack of forgiveness/vilifying of certain groups (delete reason as appropriate). Incidentally, I think Hitler consulted a spiritual medium, not the bible (which says do not kill and love thy brother – regardless of creed). I’m not convinced you can blame religion for the second world war, it was essentially dire economic circumstance (from the treaty of Versaille) and one mans evil vision coupled with an unfortunate ability to communicate very well. I find it hard to believe that a christian belief would have encouraged the massacre of the Jews since Jesus himself was a jew.
Examples of good done by religions (remembering that any religous group is made up of individuals with faith): The church of england gave full backing to the ‘make poverty history’ campaign, Tearfund supports and builds wells/schools projects in developing nations, christian aid organizes/coordinates the sponsorhip of children in developing countries, ‘Speak’ (not the animal rights activist group) campaigns tirelessly for changes to the law in this country to make trade fairer for developing nations. I have to admit here that I know more about the christian side of things than other faiths (being a christian), but as far as I’m aware all faith groups have groups within them that work for the good (cue anyone of any other faith inc. atheism to write down their organizations that carry out similar work).
Just one more point before I go to bed, we live in a democracy, therefore why shouldn’t the views of faith groups be taken into account when making policies? Isn’t that democracy? The very nature of it is that some decisions will go down well with myself and some will really annoy me, but surely that applies to everyone right? Don’t faith groups have an equal right to have a say as to what goes on in this country? Whether you like it or not, the UK and various other nations were founded on christian principles direct from the bible, pretty sensible ones actually; don’t murder, don’t steal, honour thy father and mother, parents love your children, love your brother (ie. your neighbour, whoever they are), don’t covet thy neighbours property – good way to avoid thinking the grass is greener on the other side.
These are not bad principles, coupled with forgiveness they actually work pretty well. Other faiths also have good principles of justice, meditation, modesty. I hasten to add, as far as I can see theres nothing morally degenerate about being atheist or agnostic, I guess in modern terms your moral standing depends on how you treat people and whether you can make a choice that is ‘right’ over and above a choice which would be more advantagous to yourself (but wrong).
We all get it wrong sometimes, I suppose the real question is what inspires you to try harder to be a decent person and why? Then, if you do then view yourself as a decent person, how do you reconcile that when it goes pear shaped?
Nov 20, 2008 @ 23:55:46
Richard:
It doesn’t matter if a religion is good!!! jainism is on top of them all when it comes to preaching peace, yet, that doesn’t magically make that version of god true, doesn’t it?
Only 33% of the world’s population is christian, and there are thousands of versions that make each others truths mutually excluding.
Check out on youtube “catholic nazi connection”… u’ll see Hitler with a bunch of cardinals!!! but forget about Hitler, forget about Stallin too, we’ll all find good/bad religious or atheist people doing good/bad deeds….. still, neither action proves or disproves the existence of any god.
Funny that you use the religion in the UK…. I laugh at the notion that it is the only religion founded for the horny needs of a king!!! The church of England exists today because the pope would not grant a divorce!!! its a shame that people still belong to that cult despite knowing how it came about.
Religions do have the right to their opinions, but that should not be policy for governments, the separation of church and state was something highly valuable by the founding fathers, which did not intended to start a country with religious doctrine, otherwise killing a married woman that was not a virgin on her wedding night would be ok..
Its sad when christians think that they hold some moral ground because they don’t kill, steal or honor their parents, if you don’t you go to “hell”…. we do it because its the nice thing to do…
Anyways, its late… u should do more reseach, start with Secret Origins of the Bible (Callahan).. from my home town there is also a book by Llogari Pujol, but might not be in English… he is a former priest, today a theologian and scholar of Egyptian history, he can pin point exactly where the bible copied each piece of it from the ancient Egyptians…. awesome work.
take care
Nov 21, 2008 @ 09:24:49
so basically they are defending the people who threatened to kill these cartoonists? how far is this from saying yeah its ok to kill people if they disagree with your religious views?
Nov 21, 2008 @ 09:26:53
also the greed richard is referring to is being perpetrated by christians. they simply bend the bible until it reads “take all the money you want”, one needn’t look far for proof of this (the bush administration?)
Nov 21, 2008 @ 13:55:39
“I find it a bit of a double standard that he’s against abortion, but does nothing to ban porn or get the fathers to take more responsibility – but thats a whole different kettle of fish”
It certainly is and one on which I have a firm stance: absolutely not on the former, absolutely on the latter. Ban porn…why? Porn in and of itself is not bad, and for a lot of people is a reliable outlet for sexual frustrations…frustrations, I might add, that exist solely because religious groups think sex is evil.
“I just want to see a balanced argument that doesn’t vilify religion for no good reason”
I think a lot of people would argue they have more than enough reasons to vilify religion. The problem becomes when you try to ban all vilification, regardless of if it’s a good reason or not. Frankly, who gets to decide what’s a good reason? Is priests molesting children and then it being covered up by the church a good enough reason? Personally, I find my having to exchange currency that says “In God We Trust” on it to be offensive to myself and my universe view. I DON’T trust in any god, and I trust even less those who place theirs in one. Good enough reason for me.
“It is also important to add that fundamentally religion/lack of doesn’t cause wars, it is human selfishness/greed/lack of forgiveness/vilifying of certain groups”
Absolutely, however it also provides enough reasons for people to start them, reasons they wouldn’t normally come up with on their own. “We are the chose people and have right to dominance of the world” is, frankly, something you’re really only likely to hear from a religious community.
“Incidentally, I think Hitler consulted a spiritual medium, not the bible”
You sure?
“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” Mein Kampf pp. 46
“And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God.” Mein Kampf pp.174
“The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine.” Mein Kampf” Vol. 1 Chapter 12
“which says do not kill and love thy brother – regardless of creed”
Really? Where does it say that? I’m seeing things like:
“As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.” Deuteronomy 20:10-14
“If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.” Deuteronomy 13:7-12
“Just one more point before I go to bed, we live in a democracy, therefore why shouldn’t the views of faith groups be taken into account when making policies?”
Based on your comments, I’m going to assume you’re from the UK, so what I say next doesn’t entirely apply to you. But, it does apply in the US: because the Constitution says you can’t. Individuals can take their own views into account when voting for candidates and/or ballot initiatives, etc. They can contact their representative and give their opinion in an attempt to sway their vote, but religion as an entity can’t be the basis of any policies if for no other reason than they’re just as contradictory with any other group. Some religions say it’s ok for gays to marry, others say it isn’t. Which religion’s views do we follow? Some religious people have no issue with abortion, others are willing to kill to prevent it. Which religion’s views do we follow? Some religions believe in “Intelligent Design”, others believe we came from someone’s navel. Which religion’s views do we follow? BTW, there are people of non-faith on both sides of each of these arguments as well.
“The very nature of it is that some decisions will go down well with myself and some will really annoy me, but surely that applies to everyone right?”
There’s things that annoy you, and then there’s things that out-right make your country hate you. When the President of the US feels that he can say that some 15% of the population shouldn’t be allowed to be citizens, does it matter if he talking about blacks, gays or atheists? There’s a difference between a national compromise of ideas and ideals and forcing your ideals on everyone else. Banning porn? That’s your ideal. I think it’s a ridiculous idea that would be detrimental and harmful to the population at large. Banning gay marriage? Legalized segratation of rights? Taking it even further, I don’t want my government giving MY money to faith-based charities as those charities typically come with a recruitment pitch.
“Don’t faith groups have an equal right to have a say as to what goes on in this country?”
Not to the exclusion of other groups. When all faith and non-faith groups have equal say, then we’ll talk. Until that time, it’s one group exerting their will on everyone else.
“Whether you like it or not, the UK and various other nations were founded on christian principles”
That’s partially true of the UK, completely untrue of the US. The UK was “founded” by warlords who, under what they believed was divine providence, united all of the other warlords under one banner. In the US, the founding fathers were very specific that the principles this country were founded on were not based on ANY religion, and even Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Treaty of Tripoli “The US is not a Christian nation”.
“direct from the bible, pretty sensible ones actually; don’t murder, don’t steal, honour thy father and mother, parents love your children, love your brother (ie. your neighbour, whoever they are), don’t covet thy neighbours property – good way to avoid thinking the grass is greener on the other side.”
Sorry, you don’t get to claim those concepts. They predate the bible and based on scientific research, they predate speech and societal groups. People already know these concepts, it’s an extension of self-preservation. Instictually, even chimps understand the co-opted “golden rule”. What religion does it takes those instinctual morals and twists them and adds to them in unneccasary ways, such as “you shouldn’t have sex” or “gays are immoral” or “make sure your penis doesn’t have a foreskin”. Everyone already knows they shouldn’t do anything to other people they wouldn’t want to happen to them….god ends up being in the details.
“These are not bad principles, coupled with forgiveness they actually work pretty well”
Yes, just ask the Moors after the Crusades or the witches burned at stakes. Or the Muslim girls stoned to death in the streets of modern-day Middle Eastern countries for riding in a car with a boy. I’m sure they’ll agree that religion, on the whole, works pretty well. They were just the exceptions. I’m sure they’ll take great solace in that.
“I hasten to add, as far as I can see theres nothing morally degenerate about being atheist or agnostic, I guess in modern terms your moral standing depends on how you treat people and whether you can make a choice that is ‘right’ over and above a choice which would be more advantagous to yourself (but wrong).”
You would be the minority. Most people, when I tell them I’m a devout atheist (as a joke), look at me like I set babies on fire. The difference, I suppose, between those with faith and those without is this: you need some invisible man standing over your shoulder to do good. I do it because it’s the right thing to do.
“We all get it wrong sometimes, I suppose the real question is what inspires you to try harder to be a decent person and why?”
Why do I need inspiration to try harder? There isn’t anything I do that anyone could conceivably say is “bad” or “evil”, so what am I striving for? I guess I would need some examples from you as to what you think you need to improve. Do you kill people? Do you steal? Do you cheat on your wife or SO? Do you lie? Do you “commit random acts of kindness”? Do you hold doors for others? Do you cut people off on the highway? If you answer no (or yes, where appropriate) to these questions, I’d say that accounts for about 90% of what it takes to be a “decent” person, so what is it that you do that you consider “bad” that you think you need to fix? If you’re not doing what could be considered the worst of things to do to other people, I find it hard that you would do the little niggling things, too.
“Then, if you do then view yourself as a decent person, how do you reconcile that when it goes pear shaped?”
Your problem is you’ve been told your whole life that you’re a bad person, you’re a sinner. You can’t help it, it’s part of your nature of being human. Thank you so much, Adam for biting that apple…you’ve been indoctrinated that you need to be constantly on guard to keep yourself from doing sin and being evil. But, do you? If you decided right now that you didn’t believe in any gods, do you think that you’re going to run right out and set fire to a baby? If you do, you’ve got a much bigger problem and need to see a therapist, but I don’t think you can honestly answer that question in a way that’ll result in psychoanalysis. :) Sometimes I make mistakes, sure, but I learn from it and don’t repeat it. It’s really not a difficult concept I need to have reexplained to me every Sunday.
Nov 28, 2008 @ 15:14:34
Defamation is never defined in any of this. Although Pakistan claimed the mere discussion of their treatment of apostates was an example .
This declaration seems pretty toothless, and also pretty stupid if they try to prove “wrongly” or that X in fact leads to Y:
… Noting with concern that defamation of religions is among the causes of social disharmony and leads to violations of human rights of their adherents,
… Recognizing the incompatibility of defamation of religions and cultures with the objectives of a truly globalized world and the promotion and maintenance of international peace and security, …
…(the commission)…
5. Also expresses deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;
6. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of
religions, and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities, in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;
You can read the whole thing here, it’s no. 17.
Dec 18, 2008 @ 08:23:04
SPOONMAN,
ALL I CAN SAY IS WOW! HOW UNBELIEVABLLY WRONG YOU ARE ON SO MANY ISSUES. YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG ON WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID WHEN THEY STARTED THIS COUNTRY. GOD IS IN ALMOST EVERY DOCUMENT THEY DEVELOPED FOR OUR COUNTRY. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS OR SO, SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN GOING TO COURT TO GET GOD OUT OF OUR EVERY DAY LIFE. I’M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOUR LONG ARTICLE HERE BECAUSE IT’S IN VAIN. I’LL JUST PRAY FOR YOU AND THATS ALL THAT CAN BE DONE.
Feb 26, 2009 @ 22:13:23
RICHARD, I will not discuss the side topics of atheism vs. theism like the other posters here. Let’s focus on freedom of speech – the UN is primarily bringing up this defamation act because of Islamic countries with Shariah law support it – to put this into perspective, it would legitimize human rights abuses that censor freedom of speech or criticism of Islam. In 2007 the Iranian Parliament voted almost unanimously to murder anyone who converted out of Islam. Blasphemy laws put an Afghani man away for almost life – all for translating the Koran without including the original Arabic side pages. Last year a journalist who asked about women’s rights under Islam was sentenced to decades in a prison in Afghanistan. And women in Saudi Arabia who are raped and don’t have four witnesses – you guessed it – charged with adultery under Islamic law and lashed, sometimes killed. I won’t even get into death by stoning.
Blasphemy laws are evil. They shut down freedom of speech. I am fully entitled to critique any belief or opinion that I choose – and so are you. Christianity would have never improved after the Inquisition if people had not talked about it, criticized it, reformed it over the centuries to respect human life and individual freedom. Please, critique my atheism – you don’t have to be nice about it either. :) While it’s good sense to speak politely, neither you nor I have a right not to be offended. And Muslims don’t either.
Please never curtail free speech – not in the name of Christianity or atheism or what not. America is the land of the free, home of the brave. We can discuss our ideas without censorship or totalitarianism. I don’t want an Orwellian society – and the U.N. is using good intentions to support evil things!
The U.N. of today is not the U.N. of Eleanor Roosevelt.