Defamation of Religion Banned? (Is Now Banned)

[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.

[PipeBox]

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."

[Tanker]

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.

[rlrose328]

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.

[Kyuuketsuki]

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

[Asmodean]

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!  

[Akwo]

This is great, why are you guys against it?

[Asmodean]

This is great, why are you guys against it?

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

[Faithless]

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.

[Wechtlein Uns]

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?

[Whitney]

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.

[thirteen31]

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 here.
UN link to Universal Declaration of Human Rights here.

[Whitney]

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.

[Wraitchel]

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.

[thirteen31]

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.

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?