Anti-blasphemy resolution passes UN

martin dufresne wrote:

Why would the Vatican strenuously oppose this anti-defamation resolution, then?

Good thing you are exerpting those quotes from the text, out of context. Yet to see any of these critiques actually use the full quote from the paragraph:

For example, you quote from paragraph 4, "stereotypes about certain religions": would not apply to you, or your example, unless you consider yourself to be a member of an "extremist organization" with a "program and an agenda" "aimed at perpetuating certain stereotypes about certain religions."

This is ironic in the context of the web site, since neo-Nazi's are prohibited from coming to this web site and saying that "racism begins with the concept of the 'chosen people'" on this web site because they are deemed to reflect a negative stereotype that impugns all Jews.

But do continue. Why not just start choping up the words into their constituent letters, and then use them to write phrases, such as "Blashpeme is bad" and whatever else you want the resolution to say?

Cueball wrote:

For example, you quote from paragraph 4, "stereotypes about certain religions": would not apply to you, or your example, unless you consider yourself to be a member of an "extremist organization" with a "program and an agenda" "aimed at perpetuating certain stereotypes about certain religions."

No, Cueball. It's not whether I consider myself a member of an "extremist organization". It's whether some shitface member state of the U.N. (like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or the United States or Canada) decides to label me that way and use this draconian resolution as justification to suppress me.

Quote:

This is ironic in the context of the web site, since doing things like saying that racism begins with the concept of the "chosen people" are banned on this web site because they are deemed to reflect a negative stereotype that impugns all Jews.

We ban lots of stuff on this website which we would never support the U.N. banning internationally, nor even the Canadian government - such as the rants of Steyn and Levant and such like. Surely Cueball you can make that distinction.

As I understand it, United Nations resolutions are not legally enforceable and therefore do not "ban" anything per se: they merely have moral influence... and are a political litmus test of who dares to break from the Western Bloc's current warfarin' activities, for whatever pretext. I see this one as chipping away at the pretentious "secularist" "principled" ballyhoo used to legitimate the wholesale destruction of countries and people accused of "Islamism,"an intellectually bankrupt notion if I ever read one.

As to your other question, I imagine that when enough humanists, agnosticists and atheists are bombed to smithereens, locked up in contravention of every domestic and international legislation and defiled in our media, they will rise up and demand protection here. Ain't seeing it happen anywhere in our land but yes, conceivably, it could happen... and I'd be the first to support them, being an agnosticist myself.

As you were.

Sineed:

"As one of the atheists around here, I have a problem with any
resolution that attempts to link human rights with religious rights."

This may help: the freedom to follow whatever religion one wants to is a form of freedom of expression, in the way that people express themselves by living their life according to their beliefs.

I am not religious, however I don't think it's practical or ethical to denigrate the cosmic beliefs of other people.  Generally, I find it unimaginative and distasteful when people do that - especially when they say "It's ok, because I used to be religious."  

By the way, thanks to all of you for an interesting discussion in this thread.

martin dufresne wrote:

I see this one as chipping away at the pretentious "secularist" "principled" ballyhoo used to legitimate the wholesale destruction of countries and people accused of "Islamism,"an intellectually bankrupt notion if I ever read one.

Gosh, martin, do you really think the big threat of wholesale destruction of Islamic countries and people comes from those who espouse "secularist" rhetoric? I would have thought that Christian crusaders like Stephen Harper and George Bush, or Jews like Ehud Olmert would be the real threats, and yet they never use secularist rhetoric to justify their aggression..

So you're saying this resolution is aimed at secularists who defame religion, then?

martin dufresne wrote:

In an imperialist war of agression and invasion where the invaded party is systematically painted as composed of religious fundamentalists by an invader painting itself as liberal and free from the shackles of religion, any principled defense of "anyone's" right to blast to kingdom come "any" religion - i.e. its members - will always be a thin disguise for legitimating the imperialist status quo and the current massacre of civilians - whom no one asks what they believe in.

Your world is split into two groups: imperialists, and anti-imperialists. In your world there don't seem to be any room for millions of people living (and suffering) under those dictatorships, and many inside those countries who are trying to change those conditions. You don't have to support war and invasion of those countries, but you don't have to give support to fascistic behaviour of those dictatorships either. This kind of resolutions only bolster religious fascists everywhere, by giving them legitimate tools: Now they can silence their critics with support from the UN resolutions too (and, regrettably,  support from some anti-imperialist crowd).

Your choice is not limited to either supporting dictatorships or going to war against them, and not everyone who is in fight against Islamic radicals, an imperialist or working for imperialists benefits.  If you are not familiar with the realities of the Islamic countries, you should refrain from slandering anyone who criticizes their behaviour. I find you comments extremely offensive to my people.

M. Spector wrote:

 

[b]I spent 15 minutes fucking around with this stupid forum software, trying to get this document to format properly, in what should have been a 30-second paste-and-post operation.

Just for the record.[/b]

I thought I was the only one who didn't like this new system. 

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

"I think Christianity and Islam are for morons."

Would that statement be naughty under this U.N. resolution? 

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

People as opposed to an institution.

And why the hell people are defending this on a progressive board is beyond me.

Unionist, I too immediately thought of us humanists and atheists. Where are we mentioned? 

Cueball, I think that sandizadah, unionist and m.spector have this right. What I don't understand is how you Martin, as a feminist, seem hell bent on defending this. And I would love to hear your answer to Unionist's question. 

sanizadeh, thank you for your input here. 

I am at a loss to explain why so many people who claim to be progressive support this resolution. Is it due to growing up with the free speech and the right to live as a atheist who comfortably can criticize religion and taking this for granted?

The continued denial of even the most basic human rights to women in most of the countries that pushed for this resolution, as well as the deplorable treatment of Aboriginal people and children across the Globe demostrates that UN resolutions mean diddly squat in the real world. For once, I am thankful that this resolution will mean nothing and have no real world results.

 As sanizadeh points out, I am sure the brave dissenters throughout the theocratic dictatorships are thrilled with this resolution.

That is just another distortion.

Stargazer wrote:

And why the hell people are defending this on a progressive board is beyond me.

Cueball, I think that sandizadah, unionist and m.spector have this right. What I don't understand is how you Martin, as a feminist, seem hell bent on defending this. And I would love to hear your answer to Unionist's question. 

Defending what? No Arguement has been put forward based on the actual text. Just some phrases from the text (not even complete sentences), and the assertion that the word "religion" is being used to mean "religious thought" as opposed to a "religion" as in a discrete social group, with collective rights.

Nor have I as Ghislane suggests, said I supported this resolution, I have been pointing out the overt bias of the article in the OP, and the apparent operating agendas of those "observers" quoted in the media who described the resolution as "sinister", and the overt distortion of the resolution by calling it the "anti-Blaphemy" resolution. I have been asking that people stick to the facts of the resolution, as opposed to playing into the media bias.

So far I have been dissappointed by the acumen of the critics of resolution, both in the media, and worse, here.

One of the points that I think people here are missing is that some of the organizations that are actively opposing this resolution, are in fact based in the Christian evangelical movement. Are they using the "free speech" meme as a means of preventing any limits being put on their right to denounce Islam as terrorist, or to use scripture as a basis to vilify Islam, and by extension Muslim people? Many Christian evangelical ministers have been quite vocal about casting the present conflicts in the world in the light of a religious war, in the strongest and most vile terms, and inciting people, particularly in the US to hatred of Muslim people.

This would seem to indicate that "freedom of speech" is being instrumentalized to support the underlying ideological motif of the war on terror, directly.

I think the analysis of what is going on here on this thread is pretty slipshod, so far.

Slipshod? Funny. I think what's happening here is we are very aware that Muslims have and are targeted but are against the resolution. In fact, I'm pretty sure we have covered the effects this will have on women, Aboriginal people and gaus and lesbians.

You just don't seem to like our argument. Fair enough. I hope you are not implying that we are tools of imperialism because we don't support it. I don't support it as a woman,  bisexual and a Aboriginal. Hope that is crystal clear.

I wonder Cueball, can you see what effects this has in the real world if followed? What do you think this means for atheists and those I mentioned above? Do you think religion should be granted immunity while we get spit on by religion? Do you think Islam should be given a break, despite their horrid treatment of women? How about Fundamental Xians, should they be allowed to continue to discriminate and we, the decriminated against, should be have to be silent in the face of that?

I think not but tell me, what do you think? I realize you aren't a woman, I have no idea about your sexuality, so perhaps this doesn't bother you as much because, well, it doesn't affect you?? 

Aw Cueball, we know of your love of religion. But you did not answer any of my questions. Not a single one, and yet you require me to answer a question. I'm pretty much through with this topic, as I have an extremely hard time trying to talk about it with someone who cannot or refuses to see just what this means for people who have been, and are consistently victimized and villified by religion.

You'll have to carry on with Martin or some of your supporters on this one. 

You're right. I'm an idiot. You know everything. I lack your moral and intellectual ability to read and understand.

Stargazer, I concur with you. It is not possible to "debate" whether condemnation of religion should be suppressed or not. Not on a progressive board, at any rate.