UN resolution to make offending religion a crime

Piero · 6th March 2009, 12:19 PM

I've been searching the forum for a thread on this matter, but I've found none. Anyway, it appears that the UN is about to vote on a resolution promoted mainly by Muslim countries that would bind member states to pass legislation that would make it a crime to criticise religions, especially Islam.

Here are two relevant links:
Text of the resolution
Article by Christopher Hitchens

Comments?

godless dave · 6th March 2009, 12:28 PM

Comments? The resolution sucks. That's my comment.

Piero · 6th March 2009, 12:43 PM

Is there any chance that the USA will sign it? What about European countries?

Third Eye Open · 6th March 2009, 12:53 PM

Well, seeing how Obama is an atheist and probably the anti-Christ, I doubt he will sign it.

But then again, he is also another Hitler and Hitler hated Jews, and Muslims also hate Jews, so maybe he WILL sign it.

Madalch · 6th March 2009, 12:59 PM

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement

A lot of fine-sounding phrases about religious tolerance, cessation of religious hatred, etc. I particularly like this bit:
"15. Urges States to ensure equal access to education for all, in law and in
practice, including access to free primary education for all children, both girls and
boys, and access for adults to lifelong learning and education based on respect for
human rights, diversity and tolerance, without discrimination of any kind, and to
refrain from any legal or other measures leading to racial segregation in access to
schooling;"

But they keep throwing in this bit about "defamation of religion", as if religious beliefs had hard-earned reputations to uphold.

And this bit is worrying:
"10. Emphasizes that everyone has the right to hold opinions without
interference and the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of these
rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject
to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights
or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public
health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs;"

Yes, there are limits on free speech- I can't accuse a particular person of being a pedophile or a child pornographer unless he's already been tried and convicted. I can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, incite a mob to burn down a church, or announce on Iraqi television that GWBush has gone for a stroll in Baghdad without his security team. But I will not accept that there are things that I am not allowed to say because they might hurt someone's feelings, or that my words may seem to be disrespectful.

Gagglegnash · 6th March 2009, 01:11 PM

Hi

Originally Posted by Piero

Is there any chance that the USA will sign it? What about European countries?

I suppose it depends on just how much Danegeld a country is willing to pay to avoid the inevitable reaction from the more extreme advocates of The Religion of Peace.

I sincerely hope that the US and EU give this thing all the thought it merits and act appropriately.

lionking · 6th March 2009, 01:23 PM

In Australia we have religious vilification laws and there have been prosecutions.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/v.../rarta2001265/

But, to the OP, UN resolutions which do not suit nations are usually ignored.

Macoy · 6th March 2009, 01:26 PM

If one expresses oneself to be offensive to all the religions before the ruling, will one be exempt?

wexer9 · 6th March 2009, 01:32 PM

I think these people need a healthy dose of Freedom of Speech™.

JohnnyG · 6th March 2009, 01:42 PM

Do you think the Muslims will realize that beheading the infidel Jews and Christians is offensive?

steve s · 6th March 2009, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Madalch

And this bit is worrying:
"10. Emphasizes that everyone has the right to hold opinions without
interference

my emphasis

Where do they get that from? If someone worships a pencil, why can't I say "That's silly!"

And does this mean that Muslims won't be able to criticize Jews anymore? (Beaten to the punch by JohnnyG)

Steve S.

AkuManiMani · 6th March 2009, 02:10 PM

I don't recall voting for any of the people making this decision. They can take their resolution and shove it.

Macoy · 6th March 2009, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by steve s

my emphasis

Where do they get that from? If someone worships a pencil, why can't I say "That's silly!"

And does this mean that Muslims won't be able to criticize Jews anymore? (Beaten to the punch by JohnnyG)

Steve S.

Probably a lot to do with the "Yesteryear" component, which relies upon everything go pop, or not

Lonewulf · 6th March 2009, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by steve s

my emphasis

Where do they get that from? If someone worships a pencil, why can't I say "That's silly!"

And does this mean that Muslims won't be able to criticize Jews anymore? (Beaten to the punch by JohnnyG)

Steve S.

Do they mean "interference by someone saying that's silly", or "interference by a government or group attempting to intimidate you from your beliefs?"

Madalch · 6th March 2009, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Do they mean "interference by someone saying that's silly", or "interference by a government or group attempting to intimidate you from your beliefs?"

Probably the latter. But the bit about " may therefore be subjectthe right to freedom of expression... to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for public health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs" suggests that it's okay to pass laws against telling people they shouldn't have to wear veils, or against such publications as "The Life of Brian" or "The God Delusion".

Gagglegnash · 6th March 2009, 02:23 PM

Hi

Originally Posted by AkuManiMani

I don't recall voting for any of the people making this decision. They can take their resolution and ~~shove~~ table it.

Fixed that for you, Parliamentary Procedurally speaking.

X · 6th March 2009, 02:34 PM

Good luck to them, I say.

They're gonna need it to make that stick. Even assuming it passes.

Macoy · 6th March 2009, 02:38 PM

I vote for freedom.

Macoy · 6th March 2009, 02:43 PM

But it's important to know that which is occurring.

The death of the auto mobile.

Macoy · 6th March 2009, 02:46 PM

Unless that of the robot killer.

Macoy · 6th March 2009, 02:48 PM

The machine looks at me and the machine smiles.

Macoy · 6th March 2009, 02:53 PM

It is the machinery of my disbelief.

ravdin · 6th March 2009, 02:58 PM

If the resolution passes, enforcement will be backed up with all of the power the UN can muster- in other words, it will have no effect at all.

Macoy · 6th March 2009, 03:09 PM

Which religion should be started to be nasty to?

Macoy · 6th March 2009, 03:12 PM

You've got human sacrifice excuses at first.

Cannibalism comes later.

Macoy · 6th March 2009, 03:21 PM

Those religious types and their human sacrifice.

They should STOP

Macoy · 6th March 2009, 03:30 PM

Any religion missed? Not every religion hit with the human sacrifice jag?

I want to offend all of them before it's too late.

I want my certificate.

Macoy · 6th March 2009, 03:53 PM

So, you've all done it - all you religions sacrifice people, all the time.

You should stop.

Lonewulf · 6th March 2009, 04:08 PM

Uh, do you really need to make several posts with a line or two each?

Travis · 6th March 2009, 04:10 PM

Nobody else post anything in this thread. I want to see if Macoy will just keep talking to himself indefinitely.

Lonewulf · 6th March 2009, 04:25 PM

Hi, Lonewulf, how are you today?

Safe-Keeper · 6th March 2009, 04:28 PM

Norway, as we all know, tried something similar some weeks back - tried to ban offensive attacks on religion. So saying that you didn't believe in Jesus or that Moses killed people would be fine, but calling Jesus names would not be. Naturally, it was struck down.

I'm also getting GlaDOS flashback's from Macoy's latest posts.

Macoy · 6th March 2009, 04:28 PM

Oooohhh, sometimes it makes me so mad.

Lonewulf · 6th March 2009, 04:28 PM

Doing just fine, Lonewulf, thanks for asking! Wonderful weather we have, isn't it?

Isn't it great to have to wait 60 seconds to post again? Don't you feel silly now?

ShowerComic · 6th March 2009, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

Well, seeing how Obama is an atheist and probably the anti-Christ, I doubt he will sign it.

But then again, he is also another Hitler and Hitler hated Jews, and Muslims also hate Jews, so maybe he WILL sign it.

Jokes aside, two things.
1. The proposal flies in the face of freedom of speech.

You can listen to the FFRF's comments on Obama's speech to the "National Prayer Breakfast" here -- FFRF on the Air 2/21/09

Particularly commenting on the following lines:

There is no doubt that the very nature of faith means that some of our beliefs will never be the same. We read from different texts. We follow different edicts. We subscribe to different accounts of how we came to be here and where we’re going next – and some subscribe to no faith at all.

But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.

The FFRF is particularly known for shall we say disagreeing with the section I've highlighted, and bolded.

TsarBomba · 6th March 2009, 04:37 PM

Even if such a resolution were passed on the vote of every other member of the UN, and even if the resolution said that it was binding on all countries, it would have no effect in the U.S. The free speech clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would control, regardless of contrary treaties or principles of international law. The real intent of this resolution is not to force the U.S. to enact new laws outlawing blasphemy against Allah and his prophet, but to justify the repression that other countries impose within their borders.

Macoy · 6th March 2009, 04:43 PM

Seriously, sorry about my gittishness.

I love you all, but i have been ranting.

quarky · 6th March 2009, 04:45 PM

I've always enjoyed blasphemy.
Too bad it isn't a religion.

Dr H · 6th March 2009, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

Well, seeing how Obama is an atheist and probably the anti-Christ, I doubt he will sign it.

But then again, he is also another Hitler and Hitler hated Jews, and Muslims also hate Jews, so maybe he WILL sign it.

Wait, I though Ahmadinejad was Hitler. Have I had the wrong Hitler all this time?

JihadJane · 6th March 2009, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by JohnnyG

Do you think the Muslims will realize that beheading the infidel Jews and Christians is offensive?

No, Muslims are irrational, bloodthirsty savages, barely touched by civilization, who can hardly read, so they will be convinced that beheadings are love messages.

Anyway, while it's still legal, I'd just like to say that Jesus was a pedophile and a rapist.

6th March 2009, 12:19 PM	#1
Piero Thinker Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Viña del Mar, Chile Posts: 153	UN resolution to make offending religion a crime I've been searching the forum for a thread on this matter, but I've found none. Anyway, it appears that the UN is about to vote on a resolution promoted mainly by Muslim countries that would bind member states to pass legislation that would make it a crime to criticise religions, especially Islam. Here are two relevant links: Text of the resolution Article by Christopher Hitchens Comments?

6th March 2009, 12:28 PM	#2
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,126	Comments? The resolution sucks. That's my comment.
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

6th March 2009, 12:53 PM	#4
Third Eye Open Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Washington state, USA Posts: 1,402	Well, seeing how Obama is an atheist and probably the anti-Christ, I doubt he will sign it. But then again, he is also another Hitler and Hitler hated Jews, and Muslims also hate Jews, so maybe he WILL sign it.
	__________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."- Friedrich von Schiller "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson "Let all your troubles go, cling to the joy of living..." - Heavenly

6th March 2009, 12:59 PM	#5
Madalch The Jester Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The wet coast. Posts: 8,702	http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement A lot of fine-sounding phrases about religious tolerance, cessation of religious hatred, etc. I particularly like this bit: "15. Urges States to ensure equal access to education for all, in law and in practice, including access to free primary education for all children, both girls and boys, and access for adults to lifelong learning and education based on respect for human rights, diversity and tolerance, without discrimination of any kind, and to refrain from any legal or other measures leading to racial segregation in access to schooling;" But they keep throwing in this bit about "defamation of religion", as if religious beliefs had hard-earned reputations to uphold. And this bit is worrying: "10. Emphasizes that everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of these rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs;" Yes, there are limits on free speech- I can't accuse a particular person of being a pedophile or a child pornographer unless he's already been tried and convicted. I can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, incite a mob to burn down a church, or announce on Iraqi television that GWBush has gone for a stroll in Baghdad without his security team. But I will not accept that there are things that I am not allowed to say because they might hurt someone's feelings, or that my words may seem to be disrespectful.
	__________________ As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of resolving approaches zero. -Vaarsuvius It's a rum state of affairs when you feel like punching a jar of mayonnaise in the face. -Charlie Brooker

6th March 2009, 01:11 PM	#6
Gagglegnash Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,447	Hi Originally Posted by Piero Is there any chance that the USA will sign it? What about European countries? I suppose it depends on just how much Danegeld a country is willing to pay to avoid the inevitable reaction from the more extreme advocates of The Religion of Peace. I sincerely hope that the US and EU give this thing all the thought it merits and act appropriately.
	__________________ But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -----Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782 Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. -----Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

6th March 2009, 12:43 PM	#3
Piero Thinker Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Viña del Mar, Chile Posts: 153	Is there any chance that the USA will sign it? What about European countries?

6th March 2009, 01:23 PM	#7
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,653	In Australia we have religious vilification laws and there have been prosecutions. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/v.../rarta2001265/ But, to the OP, UN resolutions which do not suit nations are usually ignored.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

6th March 2009, 01:26 PM	#8
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	If one expresses oneself to be offensive to all the religions before the ruling, will one be exempt?
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

6th March 2009, 01:32 PM	#9
wexer9 Scholar Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 94	I think these people need a healthy dose of Freedom of Speech™.

6th March 2009, 01:42 PM	#10
JohnnyG Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 256	Do you think the Muslims will realize that beheading the infidel Jews and Christians is offensive?
JohnnyG Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 256

6th March 2009, 01:48 PM	#11
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,661	Originally Posted by Madalch And this bit is worrying: "10. Emphasizes that everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference my emphasis Where do they get that from? If someone worships a pencil, why can't I say "That's silly!" And does this mean that Muslims won't be able to criticize Jews anymore? (Beaten to the punch by JohnnyG) Steve S.
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,661	__________________ "Nature abhors a moron." -- H. L. Mencken Last edited by steve s; 6th March 2009 at 01:50 PM.

6th March 2009, 02:10 PM	#12
AkuManiMani Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: On the crumbly edge of Is and Maybe Posts: 3,089	I don't recall voting for any of the people making this decision. They can take their resolution and shove it.
	__________________ "Better is a poor and a wise child than an old and foolish king, who will no more be admonished."

6th March 2009, 02:13 PM	#13
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	Originally Posted by steve s my emphasis Where do they get that from? If someone worships a pencil, why can't I say "That's silly!" And does this mean that Muslims won't be able to criticize Jews anymore? (Beaten to the punch by JohnnyG) Steve S. Probably a lot to do with the "Yesteryear" component, which relies upon everything go pop, or not
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own Last edited by Macoy; 6th March 2009 at 02:19 PM. Reason: anarchy is bollox

6th March 2009, 02:17 PM	#14
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,380	Originally Posted by steve s my emphasis Where do they get that from? If someone worships a pencil, why can't I say "That's silly!" And does this mean that Muslims won't be able to criticize Jews anymore? (Beaten to the punch by JohnnyG) Steve S. Do they mean "interference by someone saying that's silly", or "interference by a government or group attempting to intimidate you from your beliefs?"
	__________________ Writing.com Account

6th March 2009, 02:23 PM	#15
Madalch The Jester Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The wet coast. Posts: 8,702	Originally Posted by Lonewulf Do they mean "interference by someone saying that's silly", or "interference by a government or group attempting to intimidate you from your beliefs?" Probably the latter. But the bit about " may therefore be subjectthe right to freedom of expression... to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for public health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs" suggests that it's okay to pass laws against telling people they shouldn't have to wear veils, or against such publications as "The Life of Brian" or "The God Delusion".
	__________________ As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of resolving approaches zero. -Vaarsuvius It's a rum state of affairs when you feel like punching a jar of mayonnaise in the face. -Charlie Brooker

6th March 2009, 02:23 PM	#16
Gagglegnash Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,447	Hi Originally Posted by AkuManiMani I don't recall voting for any of the people making this decision. They can take their resolution and ~~shove~~ table it. Fixed that for you, Parliamentary Procedurally speaking.
	__________________ But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -----Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782 Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. -----Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

6th March 2009, 02:34 PM	#17
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,082	Good luck to them, I say. They're gonna need it to make that stick. Even assuming it passes.
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

6th March 2009, 02:38 PM	#18
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	I vote for freedom.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

6th March 2009, 02:43 PM	#19
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	But it's important to know that which is occurring. The death of the auto mobile.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

6th March 2009, 02:46 PM	#20
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	Unless that of the robot killer.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

6th March 2009, 02:48 PM	#21
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	The machine looks at me and the machine smiles.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

6th March 2009, 02:53 PM	#22
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	It is the machinery of my disbelief.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

6th March 2009, 02:58 PM	#23
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,557	If the resolution passes, enforcement will be backed up with all of the power the UN can muster- in other words, it will have no effect at all.
	__________________ If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. -Jayne Cobb Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

6th March 2009, 03:09 PM	#24
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	Which religion should be started to be nasty to?
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

6th March 2009, 03:12 PM	#25
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	You've got human sacrifice excuses at first. Cannibalism comes later.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

6th March 2009, 03:21 PM	#26
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	Those religious types and their human sacrifice. They should STOP
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

6th March 2009, 03:30 PM	#27
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	Any religion missed? Not every religion hit with the human sacrifice jag? I want to offend all of them before it's too late. I want my certificate.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own Last edited by Macoy; 6th March 2009 at 03:33 PM.

6th March 2009, 03:53 PM	#28
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	So, you've all done it - all you religions sacrifice people, all the time. You should stop.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

6th March 2009, 04:08 PM	#29
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,380	Uh, do you really need to make several posts with a line or two each?
	__________________ Writing.com Account

6th March 2009, 04:10 PM	#30
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,941	Nobody else post anything in this thread. I want to see if Macoy will just keep talking to himself indefinitely.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

6th March 2009, 04:25 PM	#31
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,380	Hi, Lonewulf, how are you today?
	__________________ Writing.com Account

6th March 2009, 04:28 PM	#32
Safe-Keeper Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sogndal, Norway Posts: 7,112	Norway, as we all know, tried something similar some weeks back - tried to ban offensive attacks on religion. So saying that you didn't believe in Jesus or that Moses killed people would be fine, but calling Jesus names would not be. Naturally, it was struck down. I'm also getting GlaDOS flashback's from Macoy's latest posts.

6th March 2009, 04:37 PM	#35
ShowerComic Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 393	Originally Posted by Third Eye Open Well, seeing how Obama is an atheist and probably the anti-Christ, I doubt he will sign it. But then again, he is also another Hitler and Hitler hated Jews, and Muslims also hate Jews, so maybe he WILL sign it. Jokes aside, two things. 1. The proposal flies in the face of freedom of speech. You can listen to the FFRF's comments on Obama's speech to the "National Prayer Breakfast" here -- FFRF on the Air 2/21/09 Particularly commenting on the following lines: There is no doubt that the very nature of faith means that some of our beliefs will never be the same. We read from different texts. We follow different edicts. We subscribe to different accounts of how we came to be here and where we’re going next – and some subscribe to no faith at all. But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know. The FFRF is particularly known for shall we say disagreeing with the section I've highlighted, and bolded.
	__________________

6th March 2009, 04:37 PM	#36
TsarBomba One Damn Dirty Ape Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: 5430 feet above you Posts: 796	Even if such a resolution were passed on the vote of every other member of the UN, and even if the resolution said that it was binding on all countries, it would have no effect in the U.S. The free speech clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would control, regardless of contrary treaties or principles of international law. The real intent of this resolution is not to force the U.S. to enact new laws outlawing blasphemy against Allah and his prophet, but to justify the repression that other countries impose within their borders.
	__________________ Signature line? I don't need no stinking signature line!

6th March 2009, 04:43 PM	#37
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	Seriously, sorry about my gittishness. I love you all, but i have been ranting.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own