Islam isn't a race.
A U.N. resolution seeks to criminalize opinions that differ with the Islamic faith.
- Thread starter w1z4rd
- Start date
Islam isn't a race.
This is true. Starting this thread with Hitchen's commentary on the resolution has derailed discussion before it began. Any discussion should be based on the resolution itself, not on a biased review with a biased headline (which contradicts the text of the resolution).
Unfortunately, now it is. Soon there will be Muslim atheists defending the Islamic state.
What does that even mean? Indonesian Muslims aren't the same as Middle Eastern Muslims.
A non-binding resolution that calls on all UN member states to pass laws abridging freedom of speech in order to protect "morals" and "respect for religions." That the UN General Assembly isn't in a position to force states to do this is neither here nor there: it's clear what the goal of the supporters of the Resolution is, as is the value they place on freedom of speech relative to the political prerogatives of their religion.
Both of which should be illegal in any country that claims to respect human rights (and both of which are violations of existing US law, for example). Note that you won't find many countries in the West where such discrimination is legal, while many religious states, particularly in the Middle East (and including sponsors of the Resolution), proudly enshrine that type of religious discrimination in their legal codes. Which raises the question of whether they're at all serious about non-discrimination as a principle, or are simply using it as a cover to advance a partisan agenda.
"Has to?" Is someone holding a gun to your head? By this same token, doesn't Hitchens "have to" read and defend against crap against atheists, free speech, etc.? And yet, he is adamantly opposed to laws that would silence such criticism.
Also, why the focus on Muslims? I thought this Resolution was about respecting "religions and beliefs?" Does that not include religions and beliefs other than Islam? If enacted, such laws would criminalize vast swaths of Arab media, since they routinely incite hatred against Jews, not to mention the draconian religious discrimination against non-Muslims in places like Saudi Arabia.
Would I object to a law against discriminating against atheists? Certainly not, and my country has laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of religious belief on the books already.
I would strenuously object to a law against criticism of atheism, though, as I suspect would Hitchens. Likewise, I strenuously object to any law against criticism of any set of beliefs, and I expect anyone who claims to value freedom of speech to do the same.
Discrimination should be illegal, but criticism should not. You have a right not to be denied employment, or government services, or a place to live, on the basis of your identity or beliefs. You do NOT have a right not to be offended by other people's opinions of your beliefs. Conflating the two issues doesn't prove anything except that you aren't willing to discuss them honestly.
I should hope not. Such a law is simply protecting your individual right to freedom of religion (and, again, most Western countries already have exactly such laws on the books).
But would you object to a law that made it impossible for someone to say that they think Islam is a bad idea? Would you object to a law that made it impossible for you to say that you think atheism, or Judaism, is a bad idea? Would you really like to be subject to imprisonment for the kinds of statements that you post routinely on SciForums?
Laws against discrimination are needed (and, ironically, the places singled out in the resolution coincide almost exactly with the countries that already have them). Laws against criticism of ideas or beliefs are not needed. More than that, they are wrong.
Again, any fair application of the speech laws called for by this Resolution would abridge your freedom to voice your ideas about Christianity, Atheism, the West, etc. as much as they would shield Muslims from criticism. Is that what you want?
Actually, that was against the law. We needed someone who would enforce the law, and that is Obama.
Don't hold your breath.
The problem with Gitmo wasn't the laws themselves, but that the government wasn't following them. There's not much the law can do to protect people, if the executive is in the hands of a criminal. Fortunately those days are over with, now.
Also, desecrating a religious text is not illegal, provided you acquired it legally (you can't desecrate someone else's religious text, but you can certainly purchase your own and do whatever you like with it). That is free speech. People may well be offended by it, but if you aren't damaging their property or person, you aren't violating their rights. The same law that allows people to desecrate holy texts (of any denomination) also allows people to burn American flags, effigies, and so on. Should we ban all of that?
The fact is that forcing people not to criticize one another isn't going to make them like eachother any more. If anything, it will have the opposite effect.
The Koran flushing story is widely known to be false, BTW. The magazine that initially publicized it retracted the story long ago. What happened was that a Koran was kicked, not flushed (I doubt that there are flush toilets in the prisoner area of Gitmo in the first place).
Yeah, because the US Army never lies.
Apparently soldiers are trained in SERE to desecrate religious books.
http://www.juancole.com/2005/05/guantanamo-controversies-bible-and.html
Free speech indeed. Like yelling FIRE in a cinema hall.
Hardly. Nobody's life is endangered by any manipulation of any book.
Should it be illegal to burn the flag of a country?
Only if you're kidnapping and torturing other people to do it. Several people died over that issue.
Forcing your beliefs on other people is not acceptable, no matter how "right" they are to you. Thats a concept that many Americans need to learn. Because they are blind to how destructive they are to global peace and stability. You should no more be permitted to force feed people your beliefs than you can force feed someone on a hunger strike by holding him down and forcily thrusting tubes down his throat, even if it means injuring him in the process.
It's sort of impressive that you'd try so hard to conflate disparate issues, but the result is so incoherent that I'm left non-plussed. This has nothing to do with criminalizing criticism of religion.
Right, and that's exactly why it is unacceptable to pass laws that force people not to criticize other people's ideas.
I'm not surprised you can't see the connection. The idea that its possible to have a constructive dialogue rather than bomb anyone who is different is alien to your culture.
But they are not criticising ideas are they? They are demonising people so that it paves the way to invade, occupy and murder them for resources. If any ideas fall by the wayside, just consider them collateral damages.
Ironic, again, when you consider that this is exactly the type of sentiment that the Resolution seeks to criminalize.
Who is "they?"
Is it? I think the text of the resolution is very clear. It is addressing current concepts in racism and the governments who encourage and support it.
The ones who are "defending" themselves by invading those who are different and using culture, ethnicity and religion as smoke and mirrors to conceal their true motives.
But, you need not worry, when it comes to UN resolutions, the US has yet to sign the right to food. I'd say passing laws on anti-defamation of their favorite targets is very low in priority.
Well, in the first place, the Resolution is very careful to speak in the language of generalized rights. As written, it clearly applies every bit as much to Saudi Arabia as the United States (in fact, much more so, since the US already has laws against pretty much everything it condemns, apart from criticism of beliefs and religions, while Saudi Arabia has explicitly discriminatory laws on the books).
Secondly, it says very little about "racism," and when it does it conflates Islam with Arab ethnicity. Hardly very clear on that point.
Thirdly, do you not consider xenophobia directed at, say, Westerners, or Americans, or Jews (all of which are supported and encouraged by certain governments - some of them sponsors of this Resolution) to be "current concepts?"
Are you talking about Al Qaeda?
Also, what are these differences, if not culture, ethnicity and religion? And if those ARE the salient differences, how can they be used to conceal a motive of attacking those who are different? As usual, you are incoherent.
Moreover, stop and think about what you're doing. You come into a thread about a Resolution that would criminalize criticism of beliefs and religions, and try to speak in support of said resolution while spewing criticism of other people's beliefs. You are validating Hitchens' primary charge here, which is that the sponsors of the bill aren't serious about rights at all, but instead are interested only in silencing those who criticize them.
Last edited:
w1z4rd
Valued Senior Member
Well.. Im hoping my country wont give in to this retarded notion. Islam needs to be criticized more, its teachings discussed more, and its fantatics like SAM educated. Any religion that has a hard on for pedophillic prophets obviously is sick.
In the mean time, people like SAM will keep denying the evils of what she believes in, and its just another example to show why religion is evil. It corrupts people. Look at SAM.. she lost sight of reality years ago. Dawkins is right. Faith is a sickness. Any God that requires faith is sick.
In the mean time, people like SAM will keep denying the evils of what she believes in, and its just another example to show why religion is evil. It corrupts people. Look at SAM.. she lost sight of reality years ago. Dawkins is right. Faith is a sickness. Any God that requires faith is sick.
No, that's just the result of arguing on sciforums. It makes you old and bitter before your time. What a senseless waste of lives.