Defamation of Religion Banned? (Is Now Banned)

[curiosityandthecat]

I agree that everyone has the right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, etc; but let's use the  Westboro Baptists, for an example, where they have targeted specific groups (in this case homosexuals, predominately, and well, everyone else) and has continually spewed hate speech towards them. This is a perfect example of defamation of a religion, ethnic group, etc...Westboro Baptists (all 71 members) are hatemongers - that is in effect what the UN is trying to ban. It serves no other purpose than to spread hate.

It's good in theory. It's still a...

[PipeBox]

I agree that everyone has the right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, etc; but let's use the  Westboro Baptists, for an example, where they have targeted specific groups (in this case homosexuals, predominately, and well, everyone else) and has continually spewed hate speech towards them. This is a perfect example of defamation of a religion, ethnic group, etc...Westboro Baptists (all 71 members) are hatemongers - that is in effect what the UN is trying to ban. It serves no other purpose than to spread hate.

It's good in theory. It's still a...

That aside, we're not making targets out of people, nor are we talking about defamation or destruction of character on the individual level.  The UN decree didn't ban "defamation of the members of a religion," it banned defamation of the religion itself, which server only to make it inaccessible to those who wish to weight their statements against a religion's ridiculous ideas.  It's akin to banning defamation of hormone-injected, farm raised sources of red meat.  The holistic food people would go nuts, and rightly so.  A few of them might call meat eaters murderous monsters, but they can be dealt with through the law, though the law would likely find the claim of character defamation unfounded.  The rest would attack the food and the method by which it is produced, which is sensible.

The problem with eliminating even the most insulting, baseless attacks on ideas is that it affords them rights.  We can't be mean to ideas anymore.  And I don't know what the opinion is around here, but I think killing something is pretty mean and we have to do with a lot of idea-slaying in our trade.

[thirteen31]

That aside, we're not making targets out of people, nor are we talking about defamation or destruction of character on the individual level.  The UN decree didn't ban "defamation of the members of a religion," it banned defamation of the religion itself, which server only to make it inaccessible to those who wish to weight their statements against a religion's ridiculous ideas.

Don't be so quick to qualify a religion as having 'ridiculous ideas.' Importantly, it is meant to point out those that are doing harm because of their religion. One should be allowed to follow their religion of choice and not be persecuted for such. It's the actions of the individual that in essence are what should be criticized and not the religion.

It's akin to banning defamation of hormone-injected, farm raised sources of red meat.

I don't see the connection. Defamation is to damage the reputation of someone, or a group. Defamation of hormone-injected, farm raised sources of red meat? A religion is a set of values and beliefs that some regard as their core values, and to judge a person for their personal beliefs is morally unethical. Defamation of religion is not equatable to the defamation of red meat.

The problem with eliminating even the most insulting, baseless attacks on ideas is that it affords them rights.

I agree with this in some points. It is ALL about eliminating the insults because of personal IDEAS, however, it doesn't just afford 'them' rights. Everyone's basic human right is the right to choose their religion (and this also includes the right to choose to NOT choose a religion) and it is a fundamental right which far outweighs the right to utter insults in the sake of 'freedom of speech'. Everyone has their right to their beliefs and NO ONE is right or wrong. Beliefs are intangible, they're not objects that can be touched. Understanding that, the individual has the right to impart their ideas, but it becomes harmful when those ideas become discriminatory and antagonistic.

We can't be mean to ideas anymore.  And I don't know what the opinion is around here, but I think killing something is pretty mean and we have to do with a lot of idea-slaying in our trade.

My opinion that killing is 'pretty mean' but I'm not sure what you mean..."idea-slaying in our trade"?

[BadPoison]

That aside, we're not making targets out of people, nor are we talking about defamation or destruction of character on the individual level.  The UN decree didn't ban "defamation of the members of a religion," it banned defamation of the religion itself, which server only to make it inaccessible to those who wish to weight their statements against a religion's ridiculous ideas.

Don't be so quick to qualify a religion as having 'ridiculous ideas.' Importantly, it is meant to point out those that are doing harm because of their religion. One should be allowed to follow their religion of choice and not be persecuted for such. It's the actions of the individual that in essence are what should be criticized and not the religion.

I respectfully dissagree. Should I allow you to believe that the moon is made of cheese and so because of your beliefs allow you to be detrimental to any new scientific research that would show otherwise? Of course not - if we're to ever live in an age of reason, we can't tolerate such insolent ideas.

A religion is a set of values and beliefs that some regard as their core values, and to judge a person for their personal beliefs is morally unethical.

How is this "morally unethical"... Do you mean immoral, or unethical? I dissagree with both.

We can't be mean to ideas anymore.  And I don't know what the opinion is around here, but I think killing something is pretty mean and we have to do with a lot of idea-slaying in our trade.

My opinion that killing is 'pretty mean' but I'm not sure what you mean..."idea-slaying in our trade"?

Idea slaying -- meaning incorrect ideas should be put down. They should not be off-limits. I'm sure Galileo would agree.

[thirteen31]

I respectfully dissagree. Should I allow you to believe that the moon is made of cheese and so because of your beliefs allow you to be detrimental to any new scientific research that would show otherwise?

How do MY beliefs change whether there is proof that the moon is not made of cheese. Scientific research will still go on. However, forcing me to not believe the moon is made of cheese would, in essence be coercion, ultimately, I make that choice. And what gives you the authority to 'allowing' me to know the truth?

Of course not - if we're to ever live in an age of reason, we can't tolerate such insolent ideas.

Who says anything about tolerating insolent ideas. It's your judgment that classifies it as insolent and this is where I disagree. I don't think you should care whether I believe if the moon is made of cheese, my beliefs do nothing to hinder scientific studies; it's when I choose to let my belief coerce you to believing it is the truth with agression and force that it hinders scientific studies. Go ahead, allow me to believe as such, it isn't a matter of right or wrong and I'm not coercing you to believe in anything you don't want to.

A religion is a set of values and beliefs that some regard as their core values, and to judge a person for their personal beliefs is morally unethical.

How is this "morally unethical"... Do you mean immoral, or unethical? I dissagree with both.

You disagree that it's unethical to pass judgment on an individual's belief? Why do you care? Would it seem strange to you that I am not looking for a 'truth' and I do not spend my life searching for the answer? I am a humanist, to judge someone on their beliefs, religion, ethnic group etc is racist.

We can't be mean to ideas anymore.  And I don't know what the opinion is around here, but I think killing something is pretty mean and we have to do with a lot of idea-slaying in our trade.

My opinion that killing is 'pretty mean' but I'm not sure what you mean..."idea-slaying in our trade"?

Idea slaying -- meaning incorrect ideas should be put down. They should not be off-limits. I'm sure Galileo would agree.

Why should incorrect ideas be 'put down'? I don't agree that you need to prove which is correct or incorrect when it comes to belief except for when that belief is causing another harm. Using your example of the moon of cheese belief - if I say as such that it is true, is it necessary to 'put it down' at all? Is it causing any harm to YOU if I did believe it were true? I believe that 'insolent ideas' in regards to religion and the need for it to be corrected is referred to as religious intolerance.

religioustolerance.org

[Sophus]

I respectfully dissagree. Should I allow you to believe that the moon is made of cheese and so because of your beliefs allow you to be detrimental to any new scientific research that would show otherwise? Of course not - if we're to ever live in an age of reason, we can't tolerate such insolent ideas.

If someone wishes to believe the moon is made of cheese they have the right to do so. If they wish to sacrifice humans for the moon god then that's a different story. Only when their absurd beliefs lead to atrocious behavior do they lose certain rights. However the benevolent thing to do is inform them that the moon is indeed, not a dairy product.

[thirteen31]

I respectfully dissagree. Should I allow you to believe that the moon is made of cheese and so because of your beliefs allow you to be detrimental to any new scientific research that would show otherwise? Of course not - if we're to ever live in an age of reason, we can't tolerate such insolent ideas.

If someone wishes to believe the moon is made of cheese they have the right to do so. If they wish to sacrifice humans for the moon god then that's a different story. Only when their absurd beliefs lead to atrocious behavior do they lose certain rights. However the benevolent thing to do is inform them that the moon is indeed, not a dairy product.

I agree, Sophus, the benevolent thing would be to inform them, however, it is necessary to point out that it is still the cheese-moon-worshippers' choice to believe it or not and as long as I'm not the sacrifice!

[Recusant]

It's the actions of the individual that in essence are what should be criticized and not the religion.

The problem arises when the religion dictates that it's followers do what most of the rest of us agree are evil acts, such as denying their children medical care, or genital mutilation (the list is quite long, but I chose examples that stick in my mind.)  I think that to point out that the religion is teaching an evil practice would be to defame it. Tolerance is a great thing, but it can be carried to absurd extremes, and I think this resolution by the UN is a good example of that.

[thirteen31]

The problem arises when the religion dictates that it's followers do what most of the rest of us agree are evil acts, such as denying their children medical care, or genital mutilation (the list is quite long, but I chose examples that stick in my mind.)

I agree with this, theses acts carried out in the name of religion is unethical  in humanity. However, you can't assume that 'most of the rest of us agree'. I think it would be fairer to suggest how it impacts society rather than labelling it as 'evil'. Promoting awareness would be more productive, no?

I think that to point out that the religion is teaching an evil practice would be to defame it.

This is where I disagree, I think there are other ways to raise awareness than to defame it. I also find it interesting that you call it "teaching an evil practice". Unethical is how I view it and I wouldn't stand for it myself, but all emotions aside, it's not up to us to decide that the religion as a whole should be defamed. I think this quote from religioustolerance.org[/quote] says it eloquently as they claim in their statement of belief, "In the importance of education. We believe that people are not truly educated unless they have studied the world's major religions and ethical systems. They need to learn of the good and bad impacts they have had on society."

Tolerance is a great thing, but it can be carried to absurd extremes, and I think this resolution by the UN is a good example of that.

You will have to define 'absurd extremes' of tolerance, I am of the understanding that the extreme would be intolerance. I am of the opinion that it wouldn't serve any purpose to retaliate a religious doctrine with vengeance and you need to be more specific as to how the resolution is a good example of the 'absurd extreme'.

[Recusant]

I find it hard to believe that the two examples of evil practices taught by religion which I mentioned are considered benign by anyone except those whose minds are twisted by the religion.  You seem to imply that since they only harm individuals, rather than society, they should not be labeled "evil."  I disagree.

I went by my layman's understanding of "defame;" I should have looked it up.  To me it meant basically "say negative things about X."  I see that the definition is more complex than that.  While it includes libel and slander, both of which have a component of falsehood, it also includes blasphemy.  I agree that saying negative falsehoods about a religion is wrong.  Blasphemy, on the other hand, can only be defined by the religion itself:  It can choose to call just about anything blasphemous.  This seems to me to give religion too much control over speech.  In the end though, if you restrict the meaning of defame to only include false negative statements, then I stand corrected.  Religion, like any other institution, should not be attacked with lies.  I never mentioned anything about "retaliate," or "vengeance."

As for defining "absurd extremes of tolerance," I return again to religious practices that are harmful, and in some cases fatal, to people who are under the control of believers; specifically, but not restricted to, children.  I think, for instance, that it is absurd to stand by in the name of tolerance and allow a child to die because that child's parents' religion does not allow proper medical care.  However, I would hope that this resolution is never used as a reason to do such a thing, and so perhaps I was wrong to label it as extreme.

 I appreciate your thoughtful response to my post.

[Recusant]

The text of the document in question can be downloaded from this site; (you need to register an account to do so, but it's free.) If anyone is interested in reading a summary of what was said when the vote was taken, it can be found here, starting at about the 15th paragraph of the section "Action on Draft Resolutions."

[thirteen31]

I find it hard to believe that the two examples of evil practices taught by religion which I mentioned are considered benign by anyone except those whose minds are twisted by the religion.

People carry out the actions - not the religion. Take it as you will, the religion is not wrong, the people that are guided by these sets of beliefs are responsible.

You seem to imply that since they only harm individuals, rather than society, they should not be labeled "evil."  I disagree.

I am not implying anything, I am pointing out that religion is a set of beliefs and the actions that make the impact in society are ultimately carried out by 'people', not religion.

I went by my layman's understanding of "defame;" I should have looked it up.  To me it meant basically "say negative things about X."  I see that the definition is more complex than that.  While it includes libel and slander, both of which have a component of falsehood, it also includes blasphemy.  I agree that saying negative falsehoods about a religion is wrong. Blasphemy, on the other hand, can only be defined by the religion itself:  It can choose to call just about anything blasphemous.  This seems to me to give religion too much control over speech.

I agree with you that religion is given too much control. But definition aside, one can not defame the religion when it is the action of the 'people' that impact society.

In the end though, if you restrict the meaning of defame to only include false negative statements, then I stand corrected.  Religion, like any other institution, should not be attacked with lies.

It shouldn't be attacked at all. Whether it is false or not, it is a belief of theirs and they have the basic human right to have their own beliefs. When the actions of the 'believers' who follow that set of beliefs impact society negatively, it is still the 'believers' that should be informed. I don't believe it has anything to do with 'false' statements, when it relates to one's core values or beliefs, there is no true or false, it is how it applies to them. It is harmful when it is negative towards others.

As for defining "absurd extremes of tolerance," I return again to religious practices that are harmful, and in some cases fatal, to people who are under the control of believers...

Exactly, it is the people 'under' the control of religion, but it's not the religion, it's the believers themselves!

...it is absurd to stand by in the name of tolerance and allow a child to die because that child's parents' religion does not allow proper medical care.

We're agreeing on the same thing here, I wouldn't stand by and allow a child to die either; which is why the   parents are held responsible - not the religion.

I appreciate having discussed this with you. In all, I do agree with your comments, I believe that many doctrines of religion are outdated and need to be made relevant for today, but the ban by the UN resolution, in my understanding, is what would make these 'believers' be responsible for their actions. It's the 'believers' that make their religion and they are the only ones with the power to change it. We need to promote change not speak negatively towards it.

[Tom62]

I find it hard to believe that the two examples of evil practices taught by religion which I mentioned are considered benign by anyone except those whose minds are twisted by the religion.

People carry out the actions - not the religion. Take it as you will, the religion is not wrong, the people that are guided by these sets of beliefs are responsible.

My 2cts. People may carry out actions, but it is religion that tells them what to do and what not to do. Religion itself has very black and white worldview that is based on "holy" books that were written many centuries ago. In these "holy" books you can find a lot of rules that are either outdated, doesn't make any sense at all or are plainly evil. We can only hope that the evil rules are never carried out by the followers of the religion. Unfortunately there are many examples that religion has been wrong in the past and is still wrong today. For further reading I recommend this excellent article of Richard Dawkins http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfa ... l_thi.html

[thirteen31]

My 2cts. People may carry out actions, but it is religion that tells them what to do and what not to do. Religion itself has very black and white worldview that is based on "holy" books that were written many centuries ago. In these "holy" books you can find a lot of rules that are either outdated...

Exactly, they are just rules but physically, no one determines what they do but the individual themselves. It doesn't matter what the religion is, actions are driven by people. Religion may offer them a solution, etc but it is still the individual that follows-through.

...doesn't make any sense at all or are plainly evil.

It doesn't have to make sense, would you expect to understand the REASON behind a criminals action? Religion is just the reason and it makes sense to them.

We can only hope that the evil rules are never carried out by the followers of the religion. Unfortunately there are many examples that religion has been wrong in the past and is still wrong today.

I don't understand why it is insistent to say that religion has been wrong? I am not a religious person, but it is not up to ME or YOU to decide what is right or wrong for the people who do believe in a religion. The point is, we need to focus on promoting how their religion is affecting society - not to determine if it is evil, good, right or wrong. Religion is a faith, a set of beliefs - if it works for them, then who are we to determine that it is evil in their life? Because you don't believe that it is correct, doesn't mean that it wrong. Religion has helped many struggle and cope with day to day living - perhaps without it, many would not have a reason to get out of bed in the morning, does that make it evil if it is good for them?

I think on a whole society needs to forget the power struggle between theist and atheist and determine what works best for us, as individuals - live and let live.

[Tom62]

We can only hope that the evil rules are never carried out by the followers of the religion. Unfortunately there are many examples that religion has been wrong in the past and is still wrong today.

I don't understand why it is insistent to say that religion has been wrong? I am not a religious person, but it is not up to ME or YOU to decide what is right or wrong for the people who do believe in a religion. The point is, we need to focus on promoting how their religion is affecting society - not to determine if it is evil, good, right or wrong. Religion is a faith, a set of beliefs - if it works for them, then who are we to determine that it is evil in their life? Because you don't believe that it is correct, doesn't mean that it wrong. Religion has helped many struggle and cope with day to day living - perhaps without it, many would not have a reason to get out of bed in the morning, does that make it evil if it is good for them?

As long as people have faith in their Gods or simply believe that Gods exists, I don't have a problem. The moment however that religion takes over the believes and faiths it always turns them into something nasty. Main reason for this is that religion then start to make absurd claims about the nature of Gods. It knows what the Gods wants; how they must be treated and what you should do in order not to offend them. This results in genital mutilations; treating women as second class humans; forbidding certain types of food; turning sex into something evil; making lots of people feeling miserable about themselves; stopping scientific progress; condemning everyone else who thinks differently, etc. etc. etc. That is the dark side of religion and it is very, very wrong.

I think on a whole society needs to forget the power struggle between theist and atheist and determine what works best for us, as individuals - live and let live.

Whatever people want to believe is their business. I have no problems with theists, as long as they also respect that I don't believe in their God. Believing in Gods is however something personal and doesn't belong in the hands of (organized) religion. Religion by itself contains so many wrong ideas, morals, laws and outrageous claims that it is like a time bomb waiting to go off. Whenever it is in the hands of people, who think that they are God's representatives on Earth, other people suffer. It is also a fact that religion is incapable to keep its own fanatical members under control. As a matter of fact these fanatical groups continue to grow year by year and gain more and more control. That scares the shit out of me and for that reason alone we have all the rights to fight it.