Happy Atheist Forum

http://www.dawn.com/2008/11/13/top10.htm

According to that story, the banning of any dissent towards religion may not be as unthinkably unlikely as we'd hope.   I can't imagine a world where certain ideas are placed above contempt.  Such a measure would bode badly for the world .  .  .

What would you do if it became illegal to speak ill of any religion?

That can't happen!  I'd go to jail for sure.  How can ANYONE justify placing an entire belief system above everything else like that?  Ugh.

Quote from: "PipeBox"What would you do if it became illegal to speak ill of any religion?

I think I and many others on the internet would get loud, proud and right in their faces! I'm not absolutely sure but I think (at least I'd like to think) I would be prepared to go to jail in defence of a principle like that.

Kyu

A double standard. Lord knows they will continue atheist bashing long after we can longer speak ill of them It goes against freedom of speech in every way. As Voltaire said:

QuoteI do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

You should be able to speak ill of religion so long as you do not assassinate the character of the religious in general during the process.

I wonder what is meant, specifically, by defamation?

Quote from: "Wikipedia"In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.

While I won't be surprised if groups would try to abuse this type of rule, this doesn't seem like anything really all that new.  If I were to say that a church was all about molesting children without being able to prove it (because I was lying) , should not that group deserve the same protection that I would expect?

Quote from: "PipeBox"http://www.dawn.com/2008/11/13/top10.htm

According to that story, the banning of any dissent towards religion may not be as unthinkably unlikely as we'd hope.   I can't imagine a world where certain ideas are placed above contempt.  Such a measure would bode badly for the world .  .  .

What would you do if it became illegal to speak ill of any religion?

That will NEVER happen. Certainly not in Europe. There would be war if they even tried it.

That is a freedom i'm definitely happy to fight for.

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"I wonder what is meant, specifically, by defamation?

Quote from: "Wikipedia"In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.

While I won't be surprised if groups would try to abuse this type of rule, this doesn't seem like anything really all that new.  If I were to say that a church was all about molesting children without being able to prove it (because I was lying) , should not that group deserve the same protection that I would expect?

I don't like the language, at all.  I believe churches are already protected by any laws regarding slander and libel.  At least in the US, I highly doubt anyone could write a slanderous news article on one.

And in reading what Brockmann actually said, "We should respect all religions," and in seeing his vague use of defamation, I am worried.  I have a hard time believing that churches are excluded from slander and libel laws, as you seem to imply.  Religions, however, should be excluded.  It should never be against the law to attack an idea, or else we'll eventually reach a point where it's against the law to tell a person that they are wrong.  What happens when a religion conflicts directly with reality, and calling that religion wrong is to slander it?

The language is too vague, and ideas have never been protected by law.  I won't stand for it if even if they are.  This line of thinking in the U.N. is dangerous.

This is disgusting. I hate how religion tries to justify itself as more honorable and thus above law. It's insulting beyond any belief that they could even THINK of TRYING to go here. If they do pass it into law in the US- which would be near impossible to enforce - it would be revoked, as it is unconstitutional. Even if it takes time, it would be.

I agree, this is bad news. Silencing people creates more problems, but if this is coming from the U.N. I think it has a lot to do with the Muslim nations' votes. Either way, silencing dissent is bad. Although I think that slander and liable are more along the lines of necessary censorship.

Well...this is definately a reason to be glad the US hasn't been too good at keeping with the wishes of the UN.

Even if I were not the type of person to speak poorly of religious beliefs, I'd still think this was a horrible idea.  It is a direct violation of our freedom of speech...we don't even ban KKK speech as long as they aren't directly encouraging violence.

It appears that some people are looking to blame the world's problems on something and they found an easy scape goat.

Anyway, if it became illegal to defame religions I would fight that ruling through protests and keep the site going till they made me stop (technically this site still wouldn't be against the law unless they wanted to interpret being an athiest as defaming religion...and that would be an even bigger issue).  I don't even think it would be possible for me to go the rest of my life without saying something  illegal if you were not allowed to say anything bad about religion.

The UN also has 0 enforcement power anyway so it doesn't even matter. Israel has disobeyed what...70+ UN resolutions?

Quote from: "Titan"The UN also has 0 enforcement power anyway so it doesn't even matter. Israel has disobeyed what...70+ UN resolutions?

true true

I would think most theists would view this as a good idea.  However, once they realized it also meant they could not speak ill of another's religion, the appeal would disintegrate.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0811/S00421.htm (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0811/S00421.htm)

<expletive><expletive><expletive>

WHAT THE HELL, WORLD!?!  I thought they were crazy for suggesting it, I never thought it would happen this quickly.
If this was passed with so little resistance, I fear the future is dark . . .

At least Denmark has threatened to walk out on the drafting of the declaration if they're listed in specific provisions to the defamation of Islam.

I'm going to go rant at someone who thinks this a good idea.  They're clearly out there.  I will find them.  

This is a sad day indeed.  This will succeed in propagating the Islamic throttle on the rest of the world.  I don't believe at all that all Muslims or anyone who is a part of Islam is a terrorist.  But this silencing of any negative voices is an act of psychological terrorism.  It will drive atheism underground.  I can't imagine what the world will be like.  This is disgusting.

 :brick:  :hmm:  :brick:  

While the UN may have banned it, I don't think many western countries will enforce it. I can't imagine that the U.S. with our freedom of speach laws can even legaly enforce it. I feel so sorry for other nations that have taken such a huge step backwards. I said what the f@#k like 10 time in a row afte reading this. I do have a question, does this mean they can't talk about atheism either? While it's not a religion, it is a religious view. I bet they left a loop hole for atheism.

Quote from: "Tanker"While the UN may have banned it, I don't think many western countries will enforce it. I can't imagine that the U.S. with our freedom of speach laws can even legaly enforce it. I feel so sorry for other nations that have taken such a huge step backwards. I said what the f@#k like 10 time in a row afte reading this. I do have a question, does this mean they can't talk about atheism either? While it's not a religion, it is a religious view. I bet they left a loop hole for atheism.

The loophole will simply be it not being a religion, and therefore outside the ban.  No real reaching needed on their part.

Anyway, I'm beginning to fear, after that push through the U.N., the US might be crazy enough to endorse it.  I can already see them reasoning out that they're just following the decree of a political body that they're a part of.  They might well use the UN's guidelines as a legitimate reason for censorship, despite the fact that we're normally happy enough to ignore it all the rest of the time.

I half expect a press announcement at some point where we'll be told that the UN is the greater authority and that we must adapt to the will of the worldwide population, especially since defaming religion is such a horrible, immoral thing.  They'll use prettier wording, mind, but it'll be equally ridiculous.  Then I'll wait for the applause so I can at least get the perverse pleasure of using a quote from Star Wars.

"So this is how liberty dies.  With thunderous applause."

I don't think the ACLU would allow this to be passed in America lying down. Our country has always held and enforced the first ammendment with more force then any other. I think most religious organisations in the US would put their voices behind it as well. It reminds me of an old joke.

Upon arriving in heaven a fundamentalist christain looks around and with great concern asks " without any atheists, sinners, or hethens, who here can I attack?"

I don't think many religious organisations will like the fact they can't finger point anymore.

This will have much further reaching consequences if the US adopts it.  It will mean that they will feel even more comfortable with pushing their religion into any and all crevices because if anyone says they can't, they can cite the US.  Any attempt at a secular nation will be quelled because, and it's a stretch yes, the mere mention of secularity will mean we are defaming their religion.

Of course, it will hopefully draw out more atheists and agnostics from their comfort zone.

I'm not at all saying that ALL Christians will support it... not at all.  But the growing population that wishes to rid the country of atheists and other non-believers will see this as a point in their column and will use it to bastardize many other things in this country.

Quote from: "PipeBox"WHAT THE HELL, WORLD!?!  I thought they were crazy for suggesting it, I never thought it would happen this quickly.
If this was passed with so little resistance, I fear the future is dark . . .

I've blogged it and I suspect will comment on again there in the future.

Kyu

Quote from: "DennisK"I would think most theists would view this as a good idea.  However, once they realized it also meant they could not speak ill of another's religion, the appeal would disintegrate.

Oh, how I'm looking forward to using this to my personal amusement by finding some xian fundie, provoking a discussion on Islam and then rubbing the paragraphs in his/her face!  :unsure:

This is great, why are you guys against it?

Quote from: "Akwo"This is great, why are you guys against it?

Uh... It encroaches on the freedom of speech slightly?  

I'm really shocked that got passed.  It would be interesting to see the list of who voted yes, who voted no, and who abstained.

There is no way in hell this is going to happen on the international stage outside of the Muslim world.  Yeah, maybe they can ban defamation of religion at this Durban II conference, but seriously, does anyone truly believe the US, UK, France, or any other democracy would incorporate such absurd laws into their own constitutions?  Denmark and France have already stated pretty darn clearly that they ain't having any.  And just the thought of Barack Obama seriously considering this is about as insane as picturing me genuflecting in St. James Cathedral.

But it does bring one thing to my mind.  Most of us here generally complain about the Christians.  I'm thinking maybe the Christians are the least of our worries.  If the Muslims can actually get something that insane and discriminatory through the UN, I think we've got our eye on the wrong religion.

Something to think about.

If the muslims wage "holy war" on the infidels now, doesn't that mean that we can bomb the shit out of them for breaking a UN resolution?

I wouldn't worry about this passing in the USA...not only would it piss off those who value freedom of speech but it will piss off the fundamentalists you just love telling other religious people how wrong they are.

I wanted to respond to this thread because I wonder what 'freedom of speech' means to those who have posted already. I know it's off topic, sort of, but my understanding of freedom of speech is the right to speak freely about a subject without persecution. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument here, but freedom of speech is: a) The right to seek information and ideas; b) the right to receive information and ideas; and c) the right to impart information and ideas.

Perhaps it's because I am not American that I don't understand, but there seems to be a fear of losing the right to freedom of speech because the UN banned defamation of religion?    To exercise freedom of speech does not grant me the right to speak ill of religion if it is hateful and meant to cause harm. Defamation refers to 'damaging the good reputation of'. It's not a contest to judge which one is better. I disagree that it imposes on freedom of speech, defamation is harmful and although you have the right to express it, to say it, to think it, to carry it out is where it crosses the line - I feel equally when the hate is reciprocated in retaliation because it never ends. Then it just becomes a pissing match and eventually everyone gets tired of it and wants to go home.

Wikipedia link to Freedom of Speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech) here.
UN link to Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) here.

In the US, freedom of speech now means that you can say anything you want as long as it is not meant to cause violence.  This is why the KKK is still allowed to hold public rallies here as long as they don't mention lynching anyone.

To not be allowed to defame religion would be a violation of freedom of speech.  For instance, it is a defamation of religion to point out that Christianity and the Pope played a role in Hitler's evil plan.  We should be allowed the freedom to speak the truth even if it hurt the reputation of a religious view.  If it was against the law to defame a religion you couldn't even talk much about how Scientologists are crazy even though all normal people know it was made up by a sci-fi writer.

I'm thinking that they did not fully consider the ramifications of this ban before they voted on it. I'm sure they were trying to cool down the rhetoric between mainly Muslims and "Zionists". It's a stupid thing to do, though. No angry religious leader or fanatic is going to silence his venomous tirade against the evil guy on the other side of the religious line in the sand just because the almighty UN says so. I'm so sure Hamas leaders and Ahmedinajad are quaking in their sandals and rewriting their speeches to avoid defaming Judaism. I wouldn't mind it if it would have kept that moron, Bush, from defaming atheism.

Meanwhile, are the rest of us supposed to stop having meaningful debates with theists because we fear insulting their beliefs? I'm guessing that they intended this to keep nations from defaming the dominant faith of other nations, all in the name of fostering peace. I believe individuals are safe for the moment, as long as they haven't been elected or appointed to represent a nation.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"In the US, freedom of speech now means that you can say anything you want as long as it is not meant to cause violence.  This is why the KKK is still allowed to hold public rallies here as long as they don't mention lynching anyone.

To not be allowed to defame religion would be a violation of freedom of speech.  For instance, it is a defamation of religion to point out that Christianity and the Pope played a role in Hitler's evil plan.

I'm not sure if I agree that that's what is inferred when relating Hitler's evil plan as a defamation of religion. What drove Hitler to do the things he did was of his own will and the responsibility is not placed on the religion. To point it out is only emphasizing how religion played a role - it wasn't the REASON for it. Religion is not to blame for Hitler and his actions.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"We should be allowed the freedom to speak the truth even if it hurt the reputation of a religious view.  If it was against the law to defame a religion you couldn't even talk much about how Scientologists are crazy even though all normal people know it was made up by a sci-fi writer.

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.

And really, what are they are hoping to accomplish?

Quote from: "thirteen31"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...

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages47.fotki.com%2Fv1401%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6145789%2Fslippery-vi.png&hash=7d66d5881d70d9e5b4e12ac61228594b78ce2ef3)

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "thirteen31"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...

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages47.fotki.com%2Fv1401%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6145789%2Fslippery-vi.png&hash=7d66d5881d70d9e5b4e12ac61228594b78ce2ef3)

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.

Quote from: "PipeBox"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.

Quote from: "PipeBox"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.

Quote from: "PipeBox"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.

Quote from: "PipeBox"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"?

Quote from: "thirteen31"

Quote from: "PipeBox"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.

Quote from: "thirteen31"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.

Quote from: "thirteen31"

Quote from: "PipeBox"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.

Quote from: "BadPoison"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?

Quote from: "BadPoison"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.

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "thirteen31"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.

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "thirteen31"

Quote from: "PipeBox"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 (http://www.religioustolerance.org/statbelief.htm)

Quote from: "BadPoison"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.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "BadPoison"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!

Quote from: "thirteen31"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.

Quote from: "Recusant"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?

Quote from: "Recusant"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."

 (//http)

Quote from: "Recusant"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'.

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.

The text of the document in question can be downloaded from this site (http://www.slideshare.net/dabydeen/combating-defamation-of-religions-revised-draft-resolution-presentation); (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 (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gashc3941.doc.htm), starting at about the 15th paragraph of the section "Action on Draft Resolutions."

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "Recusant"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.

Quote from: "Recusant"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.

Quote from: "Recusant"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.

Quote from: "Recusant"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!

Quote from: "Recusant"...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.

Quote from: "thirteen31"

Quote from: "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.

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 (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/richard_dawkins/2007/10/for_good_people_to_go_evil_thi.html)

Quote from: "Tom62"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.

Quote from: "Tom62"...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.

Quote from: "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?

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.

Quote from: "thirteen31"

Quote from: "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.

QuoteI 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.

What about people? Are they not able to?

Should such a thing ever get passed I will personally go to jail willingly and while i am there yell at the top of my lungs defaming religion as much as is humanly possible just to make up for the yellow cowards who would stop. Who respects the UN any way its not like they can back what they push.