Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on April 22, 2009, 06:21:54 am
-
This is bull**** (http://www.secularism.org.uk/108265.html)
Defamation of religion passes at UN Human Rights Council again
The United Nations Human Rights Council has once again passed a resolution proposed by Islamic countries which urges the creation of laws in member states to prevent criticism of religion (namely, Islam).
Members of the Human Rights Council voted 23 in favour of a resolution yesterday to combat "defamation of religion." Eleven nations, mostly from the West, opposed the resolution and 13 countries abstained.
Ahead of the vote, nearly 200 secular, religious and media groups from around the world (including the NSS) appealed to the Council in Geneva to reject the proposals, which were introduced by the 56-nation Organisation of Islamic Conference.
In a statement, the coalition of NGOs said the “defamation of religion” resolution “may be used in certain countries to silence and intimidate human rights activists, religious dissenters and other independent voices,” and to restrict freedom of religion and of speech. The resolution, its critics said, would also restrict free speech and even academic study in open societies in the West and elsewhere.
The OIC argued that criticising or satirising religions is a violation of the rights of believers and leads to discrimination and violence against them. The resolution, proposed by Pakistan on behalf of the OIC, says “Defamation of religion is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence. Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.”
AFIK the only religion actually mentioned is Islam, the the countries pushing this were......Islamic.
-
What is the repercussion of criticizing Islam then?
-
You get a fatwa on you.
-
They did that anyway.
-
Well, I guess now the United Nations will shake a finger at you as well and say "Please don't do that" in a serious voice.
-
What is the repercussion of criticizing Islam then?
If we live in Europe and you do it publicly, death threats and/or assasinations.
-
What is the repercussion of criticizing Islam then?
If we live in Europe and you do it publicly, death threats and/or assasinations.
Actually, I am not worried about Islamic people at all; the ones I know are either kind and helpful (especially the older people) or they are a bit wary of western people due to the way to media portrays them. Of course they are a bit more agressive than us, but they are not at all different from our mentality only 150 years or so ago. Maybe Europeans like ourselves just grown to be less agressive. ;)
Either way, I think the way we think about Islamic people is rather overboard, and coincides rather well with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Israel's urge to strike Iran. I may be an idealist, but I do firmly believe that with positive attention and care, respect when they are young, comes a long way into making them good citizens.
For the militant Islamics, see it this way; if your country is being attacked, wouldn't you fight back? I think I would, at least. That of course doesn't make their deeds in war, good deeds, but the whole situation is more than just one-sided, of course.
Back on the OP (Original Post), I think constructive critisism against any institution and/or religion should be acceptable. Using that as an excuse to attack religions, however, isn't acceptable. That only helps to put two cultures against eachother, instead of to work together.
- JC
-
Actually, I am not worried about Islamic people at all;
Theogh Van Gogh would have something to say about that. Plus often when someone publicaly criticizes Islam they do get lots of death threats.
-
What is the repercussion of criticizing Islam then?
If we live in Europe and you do it publicly, death threats and/or assasinations.
I kinda meant "What does this resolution actually enforce?'
It reminds me of the nonbinding laws that get passed all the time. Unless this one is actually binding?
But removing the names and such, countries are singled out in resolutions all the time. I'm not saying it's a great idea, but the idea that this doesn't happen all the time is kinda silly.
-
Argghh, preventing the criticism of religion? :wtf:
Whoever the hell thought that up should have to be thrown into Fallujah for a week with nothing but the clothes on his back and an AK-47, they'll show you criticism of religion. Not only does this take us a step back from what the direction the world's been taking since Nostradamus was here, you could even go as far as saying, it's preventing us moving in that direction. How are we supposed to prove/disprove texts in the Qur'ran and the Bible without it falling under the blanket term of "Criticism", or is my lack of sleep getting to me again?
-
How are we supposed to prove/disprove texts in the Qur'ran and the Bible
That would be a rather pointless endavour, wouldn't it?
The only reason why someone would even want to do that that spring to my mind is either because he's a religious zealot or consumed by hate for religion.
-
How are we supposed to prove/disprove texts in the Qur'ran and the Bible
That would be a rather pointless endavour, wouldn't it?
The only reason why someone would even want to do that that spring to my mind is either because he's a religious zealot or consumed by hate for religion.
Curiosity and desire for knowledge? Or are we supposed to look at texts that basically say "Pi equals 3" and expect people to take that one seriously?
-
@T-Man
Well I'm not usually fueled by Religious Hate, I'd consider myself a Christian, although I do agree with some methods other Christians use to empower others and the parts of Christianity they believe/won't acknowledge.
@Ghostavo
Yeah, if Einstein didn't like the concept of ether, we would still have used it until someone disproved it. I don't hate Freespace, but I look at things presented in the game in a semi-logical fashion.
-
So let's say someone wants to implement Sharia law in a random country and their opponents outright says that a religious book is not a good basis for legislation...
...is that defamation of religion?
-
Curiosity and desire for knowledge? Or are we supposed to look at texts that basically say "Pi equals 3" and expect people to take that one seriously?
I'm saying there's very little to prove or disprove. These texts are thousands of years old, and in most cases are not even supposed to be taken literaly. So what exactly do you gain by it?
-
Curiosity and desire for knowledge? Or are we supposed to look at texts that basically say "Pi equals 3" and expect people to take that one seriously?
I'm saying there's very little to prove or disprove. These texts are thousands of years old, and in most cases are not even supposed to be taken literaly. So what exactly do you gain by it?
But that's the thing, we know Pi isn't 3, but what if we didn't know? Being vague about what's to be taken literally or not is not an option many people like.
-
Curiosity and desire for knowledge? Or are we supposed to look at texts that basically say "Pi equals 3" and expect people to take that one seriously?
Eeeew! Good point, but terrible example! I must protest! :D
Pi does equal 3, for certain (low) levels of precision. For some applications, 3 is close enough. :) In fact, for any precision of PI you choose, you are always going to have to deal with "close enough."
A better example to make your point would be something like "most plants grow better when you set them on fire," or "most Americans appreciate it when you gauge your initials into the side of their car with your keys."
;)
-
lets hope the un goes down the list and give us (non-religous ppl) the protection against religions insulting us then it will be balanced , but at the end of the day questioning something is not deformation ....so we can continue to question it
-
Curiosity and desire for knowledge? Or are we supposed to look at texts that basically say "Pi equals 3" and expect people to take that one seriously?
Eeeew! Good point, but terrible example! I must protest! :D
Pi does equal 3, for certain (low) levels of precision. For some applications, 3 is close enough. :) In fact, for any precision of PI you choose, you are always going to have to deal with "close enough."
A better example to make your point would be something like "most plants grow better when you set them on fire," or "most Americans appreciate it when you gauge your initials into the side of their car with your keys."
;)
Art AND Math critic?
-
Art AND Math critic?
Too good to be true? But wait! There's more! Call now and receive not one, not two, but THREE FREE Avacado slicers! For only fourteen easy payments of $12.99!
Call now before we come to our senses!
-
This makes me extremely grateful that I live on an entirely different landmass than the nations proposing that resolution.
-
lets hope the un goes down the list and give us (non-religous ppl) the protection against religions insulting us then it will be balanced
Well for one thing it will shut up a lot of the people who claim atheism is a religion. Cause they tend to say defamatory things more often. :D
-
It's times like this when I'm glad I live in the US, where everybody (on paper) has the same nominal right to freely criticize, among other things, religion. I know things don't always work like that in practice, but at least there are people who try to make the system work towards freedom. (****, that's an off-the-cuff argument/ comment, isn't it). All I'm gonna say is, giving special treatment to a particular religion is counter-productive towards... wait, what is the UN trying to accomplish with this proposal? (Serious question, by the way- what would this accomplish??)
I didn't get through the whole thing, but I agree with the Canadian rep- "people have rights, not religion".
-
Why does this remind me of The League of Nations, all of the sudden? :nervous:
-
Amazing idea, let's ban criticism of governments next, and then maybe criticism of Police, or criticism of torture or brainwashing, next thing you know, speaking out against the norm will be totally illegal and the world will be a happy place, because you'll get locked up if you don't support everything you are told to.
Political Correctness has a very great deal to answer for....
-
...what is the UN trying to accomplish with this proposal?
They are throwing the proposing nations a bone, as a way of trying to not get more terrorists into they're countries.
-
Political Correctness has a very great deal to answer for....
This isn't anything to do with political correctness. It's just that nations who don't care about political correctness dressed it up in those terms in the hope that the countries who do might fall for it.
-
They are throwing the proposing nations a bone, as a way of trying to not get more terrorists into they're countries.
If that's the case, then we're talking about massive stupidity. Or they're on drugs (the UN i mean).
-
Well, this is the UN we're talking about. Despite what anyone else says, they're unspoken goal seems to be to protect they're own ass, while also weakening the US and ignoring/placating the Middle East.
-
Or they're trying to provoke a culture war, asuming that their asses are protected.
I seriously can't find anything better than a conspiracy theory here.
-
Actually, I am not worried about Islamic people at all;
Theogh Van Gogh would have something to say about that. Plus often when someone publicaly criticizes Islam they do get lots of death threats.
When you publicly criticize ANY major group you get death threats these days. It's not limited to islam-critisants alone.
-
This makes me extremely grateful that I live on an entirely different landmass than the nations proposing that resolution.
I like islands.
After reading the actual article (:nervous:) I kind of think that it really depends what you classify as defamation of a religion... Surely defacing sacred statues and stuff is defamation of religion, but opposition to things done in the name of religion, is that defamation of religion or what?
After writing that, I then thought about stoning women to death. Then I thought, "Yeah, actually this entire thing is bull****."
Edit again; not that I'm defaming the Koran or anything by the above comment. What I meant was that this law of banning criticism is kinda bull****. Incidentally, does criticism count as defamation?
-
Edit again; not that I'm defaming the Koran or anything by the above comment. What I meant was that this law of banning criticism is kinda bull****. Incidentally, does criticism count as defamation?
It could be argued as such. And if that resolution passes, then the answer would probably be "yes".
-
Incidentally, does criticism count as defamation?
No, it makes the criticized angry, perhaps to violence, but defamation no. Defamation is rather a lot stronger term.
-
What happens when the religion defines criticism as defamation (or doesn't make difference between them)?
-
Does anyone have a link to the UN resolution that this was about, or at least know which one it is?
-
Does anyone have a link to the UN resolution that this was about, or at least know which one it is?
In the first post.
-
For the militant Islamics, see it this way; if your country is being attacked, wouldn't you fight back?
Too bad that these "militants" were militant long before. They view the west as enemies because the west stands in their way to create a 7th century barbaric state, not because there are westerners in the Middle East. We could withdraw from the region entirely, build a wall round all muslims countries and send all muslims in the west back to that region and those militants would still be there, doing their barbaric stuff.
No, what these fundamentalists want is to turn the whole world into a muslim hellhole, just like their quran tells them to, first by bringing the muslim regions under their control and then by exterminating every nation and worldview that isn't the same as theirs.
-
This makes me extremely grateful that I live on an entirely different landmass than the nations proposing that resolution.
Come now, have you heard of Canada's human rights commissions? Anyone who actually gets accused of anything (and gets past the "discovery" or whatever it's called phase) is found guilty. And these are used to subdue any religious or other issues. It just never gets any news attention, as all our news companies seem to have their eyes out east or down south.