U.S. 'must oppose' Islamic 'anti-defamation' demands

[skepticalbeliever]

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80797

A Heritage Foundation expert warns that the U.S. will need to maintain active opposition to plans for "religious anti-defamation" laws both within its borders and on an international scale, or face consequences.

In a report published on the foundation's website, Steven Groves said the U.S. "must remain wary of continuing efforts by U.N. member states to gain wider acceptance of the 'defamation of religions' concept."

Proponents "will continue to push the 'defamation of religions' agenda at the U.N. Human Rights Council, the U.N. General Assembly, and at other international forums such as the April 2009 Durban Review Conference," he warned.

He cited the 2005 attempt by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., who wanted to require that the Islamic holy book, the Quran, be treated with "dignity and respect."

In nations following Islam, the present practice is to use such laws to protect Islam and to attack religious minorities with penalties up to and including execution, according to "anti-defamation" opponents. Laws of this kind, the opponents say, already have been used to:

Summon award-winning author Mark Steyn to appear before two Canadian Human Rights Commissions on vague allegations of "subject[ing] Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt" for comments in his book, "America Alone."


Accuse 15 Pakistanis of blasphemy against Islam during the first four months of 2008.


Sentence to three years in prison plus 300 lashes a Saudi Arabian teacher "for expressing his views in a classroom."


Arrest a blogger in the United Kingdom for "anti-Muslim" statements.

This is why I believe international law is not relevant to judges deciding US court cases and only want conservatives on the bench. It seems likely that the UN will pass this. In the UK and Canida people are being tried for insulting Islam. It seems like the places that liberals point out to as having more liberties than the US actually don't. The constant theme I hear from Bill Maher is that we need to be more like europe. I don't think we want to be more like europe and Canida if this is the nonsense that goes on there.

[quixotecoyote]

The "JREF" must "oppose" unnecessary "quotes."

[Zep]

Having spelled the name of the big country right next door to you incorrectly, just as you advocate for laws you don't like, so I shall ignore the rest of your post.

[Tony]

I oppose any law by any government that requires people to show "dignity and respect" for any religious belief or text.

[ravdin]

This is why I believe international law is not relevant to judges deciding US court cases and only want conservatives on the bench. It seems likely that the UN will pass this. In the UK and Canida people are being tried for insulting Islam. It seems like the places that liberals point out to as having more liberties than the US actually don't. The constant theme I hear from Bill Maher is that we need to be more like europe. I don't think we want to be more like europe and Canida if this is the nonsense that goes on there.

At the risk of engaging in ad hominem reasoning, I would advise you to take any information you read in World Nut Daily with a grain of salt. It's run by right wing religious fundamentalists. I don't always disagree with them as they are less distasteful than the Islamist fanatics they often denounce. But if you find any "facts" from them you might want to check the source.

[Soapy Sam]

It would be nice if a country- any country- could honestly say "Your religion is a pile of nonsense which we will accord no respect at all". However, the only nations even remotely likely to say this are those with alternative, monobloc religions of their own.

If only the US was free of the nonsense of Christianity, it would be in a position to dismiss the nonsense of Islam with a clear conscience. Till then it will wallow in hypocrisy like the rest of the world.

[ravdin]

It would be nice if a country- any country- could honestly say "Your religion is a pile of nonsense which we will accord no respect at all". However, the only nations even remotely likely to say this are those with alternative, monobloc religions of their own.

If only the US was free of the nonsense of Christianity, it would be in a position to dismiss the nonsense of Islam with a clear conscience. Till then it will wallow in hypocrisy like the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, the way that Christianity and Islam are practiced today are not the same. There is no Western nation that would stone a 14 year old gang rape victim to death in front of a 1,000 strong cheering mob for committing "adultery". We have plenty of high ground to denounce this sort of barbarism, no matter how predominantly Christian our own countries might be.

[Soapy Sam]

Unfortunately, the way that Christianity and Islam are practiced today are not the same. There is no Western nation that would stone a 14 year old gang rape victim to death in front of a 1,000 strong cheering mob for committing "adultery". We have plenty of high ground to denounce this sort of barbarism, no matter how predominantly Christian our own countries might be.
I disagree.
Nonsense is nonsense.
A legal code derived from nonsense is likely to be , likewise, nonsense, but that's a secondary issue. The place to start is with the facts, not opinions.
The fact is, Islam is not innately more nonsensical than Christianity or Judaism. . Dump the nonsense and the rest follows.

[Philip]

I disagree.
Nonsense is nonsense.
A legal code derived from nonsense is likely to be , likewise, nonsense, but that's a secondary issue. The place to start is with the facts, not opinions.
The fact is, Islam is not innately more nonsensical than Christianity or Judaism. . Dump the nonsense and the rest follows.

All religions are based on nonsense. The effect on human rights caused by the nonsense is not the same for all religions.

[geni]

Unfortunately, the way that Christianity and Islam are practiced today are not the same. There is no Western nation that would stone a 14 year old gang rape victim to death in front of a 1,000 strong cheering mob for committing "adultery". We have plenty of high ground to denounce this sort of barbarism, no matter how predominantly Christian our own countries might be.

If you mean somalia they were not chearing. In fact reports suggest that most of the crowd were somewhat upset by the events in question.

[Dragoonster]

All religions are based on nonsense. The effect on human rights caused by the nonsense is not the same for all religions.

I bet as a dictator I could do some brutal things even in the name of Buddhism.

To the topic--I oppose denying anyone freedom of speech. I also oppose "hate crime" legislation which seems similar. I could care less what motivates a murderer to murder or a vandal to vandalize, aside from merely whether they're culpable of the crime or not. Special status of victims, crimes, or speech based on politically incorrect ideas--no thanks.

It seems like the places that liberals point out to as having more liberties than the US actually don't.

In this case, nope they sure don't. Some of us liberals agree with you on this issue. I wonder if you'd agree with me that flag-burning should remain legal, for similar free-speech reasons.

[geni]

In the UK and Canida people are being tried for insulting Islam.

Actual case please?

[WildCat]

Actual case please?
AzVJTHIvqw8

The rest here: http://www.youtube.com/user/EzraILevant

[geni]

AzVJTHIvqw8

The rest here: http://www.youtube.com/user/EzraILevant

I was looking for a UK case. Insulting is still technicaly legal under UK law and I'm not sure the incitement law has ever been used.

[ravdin]

I disagree.
Nonsense is nonsense.
A legal code derived from nonsense is likely to be , likewise, nonsense, but that's a secondary issue. The place to start is with the facts, not opinions.
The fact is, Islam is not innately more nonsensical than Christianity or Judaism. . Dump the nonsense and the rest follows.

Then explain how democracy and human rights thrive in countries where 95% of the population have religious beliefs, and millions have been slaughtered in officially atheistic countries such as the USSR and China.

It's not nonsense that we should be worried about- the enemy is orthodoxy and intolerance.

[Zelenius]

I'm all in favor of being sensitive toward others, people of different cultures, religions or beliefs.

However, I do not believe that the state should use the law to force people to be "sensitive". As much as I try to be sensitive and believe being sensitive helps promote the common good, I believe people should have the right to criticize or insult any religion. People do not have the "right" to not be offended. No group should ever be given such a right or privilege; it would almost set them off as a separate caste from everyone else. This is very anti-democratic and anti-free speech. This is a special "right" predicated on taking away the "right" of others; that Muslims should have the "right" to not be offended means people no longer have the right to offend(or merely criticize or explain) Muslims. Similarly, the "right" slave-owners had to own slaves was predicated on Africans not having the right to be free in early America.

Sometimes what is called being "insensitive" toward religion consists of taking religion literally(as believers say it should), or following certain literalist beliefs to their "logical" conclusions to show how ridiculous these beliefs are. This can often be funny, but it is hardly insensitive, in my opinion. Yet so many believers get upset by this. Sometimes the simplest, most inoffensive(in our minds) questions can cause them to become extremely defensive and hostile. This applies to Christians, Jews, Muslims and various other religions.

On the other hand, painting religions with a broad brush, such as claiming that "Islam is a religion of war and hate" is potentially toxic because this may very well not be the truth of the matter. Statements like this often come from other religious groups, like Christian fundamentalists hostile to Islam. While certain verses of the Qu'ran seem to promote hatred and violence toward infidels, some are about making peace and not engaging in wanton violence. I haven't read the entire Qu'ran, so maybe I am wrong. Sometimes different religious groups put aside their differences to promote the idea that "religion is good", but achieving this common ground sometimes leads them to gang up on and denounce secularists and atheists. Luckily, this doesn't happen very often(although if it does happen and Islam and Christianity reconcile their petty differences, that could be a very scary day for non-believers; this was probably more likely back when both Christian and Islamic fundamentalists fought against atheistic communism, but less likely in the era of the "war on terror").

That so many people take their holy books so seriously is not all that funny the more you think about it. It's downright scary in fact. Yet I often make jokes or laugh at jokes about religion, although they usually start out as observations of their "strange" beliefs.

For instance, I don't know if anyone ever came up with this before, but someone probably has: I was wondering how Catholic priests-in-training at seminary school "train" for doing the transubstantiation of the wafer that supposedly becomes Jesus' body. How do the seminary students know they are doing it right? What is the proper technique? Does it taste a little different when it becomes Jesus' body? Can a priest teach the proper technique to anyone? Are there seminary students who fail transubstantiation? Do they have to repeat the course? If they let this student who failed transubstantiation become a priest, would there be a scandal at the Catholic church if parishioners learned that the priest wasn't performing "proper" transubstantiation, and is therefore a fraud? Can they sue the church and the priest for fraud? If this case advances through the courts, how do they deal with the utter nonsense of "transubstantiation"? Will they try to do some scientific tests on wafers that were transubstantiated to compare them with wafers that were not? If the priest is a pedophile of altar boys, or far worse, is sleeping around with women, does this effect his ability to perform proper transubstantiation? I could think of many many more, but you get the idea!

Yet some people wonder why I gave up on religion :D
LOL

[Zelenius]

Then explain how democracy and human rights thrive in countries where 95% of the population have religious beliefs, and millions have been slaughtered in officially atheistic countries such as the USSR and China.

It's not nonsense that we should be worried about- the enemy is orthodoxy and intolerance.

Both of these developments are very recent. Prior to the 20th century, religious hate was often intertwined with wars and violent conflicts. In so many of the countries where democracy and religious belief now coexist, democracy is rather new. The U.S and it's almost entirely Christian population tolerated slavery of Africans and the ethnic-cleansing of natives for centuries. European Christians from Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands launched their own overseas empires and behaved similarly; slavery wasn't banned in most of them until the early to mid 19th century. Most were not truly democratic until the 20th century, the road to more robust democracies punctuated by the mass slaughters of World Wars One and Two.

In my opinion, communism is like a secular religion. Like so many religions, communism is in competition with other religions. Communists are often fanatical, and they worship their movement's founders in a manner similar to the way some Christians venerate their saints. The formulators of communism and the core group within the communist movement have long been predominantly atheists, although there are many Catholic communists in South America and other parts of the world. I do not believe their non-belief was a primary motive in the mass murder they committed; unlike totalitarian Christianity in the Middle Ages, the communists as well as the Nazis had the machinery of the modern state at their disposal(as well as much larger populations), and so were able to murder more efficiently. Because of their very strong connection with the old bourgeois/capitalist world, religion was often the main target for persecution for communist leaders.

I agree though that orthodoxy and intolerance are the enemy, but nonsense can be dangerous too if it convinces the believer he will be rewarded for committing barbaric acts.

[rwguinn]

Anyone care to explain to me how 1788-1865 is "Centuries"?
The US has been in existance for 232 years, 220 of which were under a Constitution.
Thus, we did not "tolerated slavery of Africans and the ethnic-cleansing of natives for centuries."
Sorry--you rhatred is showing

[Beerina]

The "JREF" must "oppose" unnecessary "quotes."

It's part of the automated behavior of modern journalists, who are taught to not express opinions, so quote people as often as possible, and for statements not from people, put opinion-ish things in quotes.



E.g. That guy who sacrificed his life to save the schoolbus full of children is a "hero".

US government believes Bin Laden is "bad".



Also rolled in are fear of lawsuits, which their minds cannot separate, until quotes (used to prevent lawsuits by presenting something as a quote rather than a statement) begin to become headless, with nobody remembering why they're doing it.

E.g. The prosecutor says he is guilty of "murder".

Yet guilty of murder would be perfectly fine. "Oh yeah? I'll see you in court" is exactly what the prosecutor has in mind.

And after the conviction, they still use quotes, forgetting that they no longer need fear defamation or whatever. Soandso is now guilty of murder. Not guilty of "murder".

[Beerina]

I oppose any law by any government that requires people to show "dignity and respect" for any religious belief or text.

I oppose any law by any government that requires people to show dignity and respect for any belief or text or idea or picture or concept or ...

The Phelps stuff is among the most outrageous free speech ever, yet I cannot see it wise to authorize government the power to outlaw even extreme cases like that. For something like free speech, the "slippery slope" must be fought on the unpleasant areas (Phelps, porn, etc.) before it starts to encroach on the "real" stuff.

[Mojo]

I was looking for a UK case. Insulting is still technicaly legal under UK law and I'm not sure the incitement law has ever been used.


Indeed, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=religious+hatred&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=2320532&ActiveTextDocId=2320532&filesize=4612) Appears to specifically allow insulting religions: Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents