Our Secretary of State, on behalf of her employer, has rejected the notion that religion can be defamed. That’s the official United States position before the world. A resolution condemning religious defamation has been proposed before the United Nations General Assembly. Amazingly, this proposal actually was endorsed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, by a vote of 20-17 (with 8 abstaining and 2 absent). One wonders what kind of minds operate behind that particular council.
According to human rights groups, the council is controlled by a bloc of Islamic and African states, backed by China, Cuba and Russia, who protect each other from criticism.
Hmmm. This begins to make sense. Ever since the crazy Islamic reaction to the Danish cartoons a few years ago, the memetic structure of Islam has circled the wagons in an effort to keep critics from being…
funny heard. It is this block of crazies that is behind the resolution. Putting the full weight of law behind this resolution would, in effect, be enacting blasphemy laws. Fortunately, resolutions don’t have that sort of weight, but it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that such resolutions might influence laws in particular countries. So it’s a good idea to nip it in the bud. Secretary Clinton has the right idea.
Clinton said the pending resolution hurts religious freedom and denies societies the benefits of diverse views, opinions and faiths.
“Attempts to stifle them or drive them underground, even when it is in the name of and with the intention of protecting society, have the opposite effect,” she said. “Societies in which the freedom of religion and speech flourish are more resilient, more stable, more peaceful and more productive.”
There’s a lot of truth in that.
The inane idea that god somehow needs protection from humans and their jeebuz bullying is, well, inane.
I, like many other nonbelievers, have continued to wonder how an all powerful being is so small that he/she/it/they need laws or resolutions or violence to protect it’s ittle-wittle feewings from the mean humans who say ugly things.
“The inane idea that god somehow needs protection from humans and their jeebuz bullying is, well, inane.”
Yeah! That’s what I’ve always thought, too! Maybe you ought to clue in our esteemed host, Johnny, here, about that, where my freedom to comment without moderation and censorship is concerned? After all… I think it’s inane thinking that any of you tough-guys, here, need protection from anything I say… right?
I guess freedom of expression really is only for those that tow the politically-correct line.
Yea, Hillary! You, go, girl!
Will the USA’s Religious Right wackos see the wisdom in this position, or will they get their balls/boobs tied in knots because it was articulated by those Damn Dems?
@ thelittlepelican: Like you, I think gods ought to defend themselves if people offend them.
“I think gods ought to defend themselves if people offend them.”
Those “gods” don’t have to defend themselves, as they don’t even exist. As for God your Creator, well, I would have thought that you of all people would have known that He will, Chaps.
Everything in it’s time, Lassie.
I wonder though if this resolution wasn’t put forward by a non-Christian (Muslim) community if it would have passed. I think the US opposing it has more to do with supporting Christianity in countries where it is in the minority than actually supporting the right to defame religious beliefs.
But still, even if it’s for the wrong reason it’s a good thing.
The idea that there’s a god is inane. Any idea based on that then is inherently inane, no?