DescentBB

Honestly TB, I'm surprised you missed This one.(WorldNet Daily.com)

Read about HERE also.(the International Herald Tribune)

And Here(The American Muslim.org)

It seems to have been way under the news radar.

Just really quick. The \"Organization of the Islamic Conference nations\" (57 nations in all) submitted a document called \" Defamation of Religions”.
Really basically, it makes saying anything negative or contrary to another religion (more specifically Islam) a hate crime and punishable. I’m having difficulty finding a copy of the document on line. It was pretty easy to find last week, but the web is a fickle place. I might have a copy on my box at home.

Forget about global warming. Hello social terra-forming on a global scale. This is why one world government is/would be a bad thing.

Incidentally, I read about it first on the ACLJ's Site a week ago.

Duper wrote:....and punishable.

I'm going to check this out myself but I expect slander against Islam would mean a beheading as punishment while slander against Christians would be a slap on the hand.

I expect Ferno any minute.

Bee

Nothing shocks me about it. It will be interesting what the complicit leftists will have to say about it- especially in \"enlightened\" europe and elsewhere.

Isn't it already a bad idea to say anything contrary to Islam in Islamic nations? (Or even outside their jurisdiction sometimes - recalling the cases of the filmmaker in the Netherlands and the Danish cartoons.)

While of course I don't think much of the kind of immense insecurity that must lead to policies such as this, it's not really a step backward so much as a confirmation of what we already knew...

But it is alright for Mooslums to say derogatory things about Jews?
And I know Muslims is spell wrong.

It's like Bizzaro World out there anymore!

I guess if the islamofascists get what they want then maybe the Westboro Baptist Church should get their God Hates Fags religion protected by the U.N. too!

Realistically if they have been trying to get this done since 1999 I doubt it's gaining any ground and I wonder if there really was any new news to even report or was someone just trying to stir the pot? (I'm too busy to go read up on it to see)

Will Robinson wrote:It's like Bizzaro World out there anymore!

I guess if the islamofascists get what they want then maybe the Westboro Baptist Church should get their God Hates Fags religion protected by the U.N. too!

At least it would be something that the Baptist and Islamic Churches could agree on.

Krom wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:It's like Bizzaro World out there anymore!

I guess if the islamofascists get what they want then maybe the Westboro Baptist Church should get their God Hates Fags religion protected by the U.N. too!

At least it would be something that the Baptist and Islamic Churches could agree on.

PLEASE dont included the Baptist faith in that issue. its just those inbred nut bags at Westboro. the Baptist denomination does not "hate Fags"

Granted, this idea blows. But all of the hullabaloo surrounding this thing sounds like a lot of Christian martyr syndrome. Why is this interpreted as an attempt to \"make Christians criminals\"? It seems like atheists have more to lose here.

Jeff250 wrote:Granted, this idea blows. But all of the hullabaloo surrounding this thing sounds like a lot of Christian martyr syndrome. Why is this interpreted as an attempt to "make Christians criminals"? It seems like atheists have more to lose here.

Hear, hear. I couldn't agree more, and I'm not even an atheist. =P I say, let people believe what they want to believe. Everyone keeps their own damn noses out of everyone else's business and the world will be a happier place. In theory, anyway.

The 'hullaballou' is pretty typical, really. If anything, mainstream Christian culture in the US is hyper-protective of the religious freedoms we have. It's like the emails I regularly receive from family members; I just take it with a grain of salt and research it myself.

Regarding the act itself, from what little I know of it, my guess is that it was originally a well-intentioned attempt to provide some support for defining religious hate crimes. That would have been a good thing! But it appears now to have grown into something much more closely resembling censorship, a scary thought.

Well I'm all for it! While it is primarily there to put an end to the West making a bad reputation of Islam with it's media (and E&C Forums, *cough*ahem*), it also helps in many other parts of the world, as being against a religion isn't just about Islam there.
And no, this is neither going to apply exclusively to Islam-bashing nor is it going to be prosecuting people whever they say anything bad at all about a religion. It's meant for when people are quite distinctly biased against a religion only, such as saying that terrorists must be Islamic or some other unrealistic critisism.

Fun facts:
* 58% of UN countries voted for it, and 28% voted against it. I think it's safe to say that this isn't about Islamic countries trying to give themselves an unfair foothold, like most of you are inclined to believe.
* not a single state from Africa or South America has voted against it.
* most Catholic states in the world supported it.
* the majority of western states voted against it, while the majority of non-western states voted for it. I strongly suspect this is because the media in western countries has already made a lasting footprint of how Islam is an evil religion, while non-western countries don't have this kind of media bias.

Tiger, if this was solely about religious hate crimes and encouraging peace, I'd be all for it.

However, as it stands, this act goes too far by encroaching on the freedom of speech built into our Constitution. Yes, of course there are times people say incredibly moronic things, and the religious rhetoric in the US is often anti-Islam (often for very poor reasons)... but I can't understate the importance of keeping government out of issues of speech. (Issues of actual crimes or threats are a different matter, of course.)

I think Kilarin put it well in a recent thread:

Kilarin wrote:Freedom of Speech includes the freedom to say things that others find offensive.
...I don't have to read it. I'm free to tell them they are evil idiots.
...
Freedom of speech includes the right to say things others find offensive. Otherwise it's absolutely meaningless.

Now, an important part of this that is often misunderstood is that just because you have the right to "Freedom Of Speech" does NOT mean that anyone has to listen. I've heard people protest that their "Freedom of Speech" was being violated because people boycotted their albums or books. Sorry. You have to right to speak, you do NOT have the right to force me to listen.

-----------

Now, I'll agree that we probably need some legislation to better define and deter religious hate crime. But when a legislation makes speech a crime, it's gone too far.

“Hate Crime”…Man, how I hate that term.

I'm just surprised they haven't created a thought crime scenario yet.

you don't eat your dessert first. duh!

Foil is correct, the topics are identical in my opinion.

First graders understand it:
\"Sticks and Stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me\"

I disagree STRONGLY with Dawkins, but I would NEVER approve of any attempt to make his criticisms of religion illegal.

Foil wrote:Tiger, if this was solely about religious hate crimes and encouraging peace, I'd be all for it.

However, as it stands, this act goes too far by encroaching on the freedom of speech built into our Constitution. Yes, of course there are times people say incredibly moronic things, and the religious rhetoric in the US is often anti-Islam (often for very poor reasons)... but I can't understate the importance of keeping government out of issues of speech. (Issues of actual crimes or threats are a different matter, of course.)

Actually, the US is one of the few countries that hasn't got some sort of law prohibiting hate speech against racial, ethnic, or religious groups. And those countries are getting on just fine with it in place too.
In other words, freedom of speech is a red herring. In some cases it's distinctly a bad thing.

Kilarin wrote:I disagree STRONGLY with Dawkins, but I would NEVER approve of any attempt to make his criticisms of religion illegal.

Okay.


But I don't see how that's related to the matter at hand. Dawkins has clearly rational and valid critisisms, and so won't be affected.

TIGERassault wrote:But I don't see how that's related to the matter at hand. Dawkins has clearly rational and valid critisisms, and so won't be affected.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the matter at hand.
Dawkins complaints, and outright insults and attacks, against religion would be EXACTLY the kind of speech that is condemned by this act.

The "rationality" of his arguments has nothing to do with the issue.

Let me give you a few examples:

A Protestant preaches a sermon about the persecutions and atrocities committed by the Catholic church against Protestants. All backed up by solid fact. Then uses these historical and verified incidents, along with some Bible texts, to mark the Pope as the anti-Christ.

A Catholic preaches a sermon about the persecutions and atrocities committed by the Protestants against the Catholic Church. All backed up by solid fact. Then uses these historical and verified incidents, along with statements by the church fathers, to mark Protestants as heretics.

A Muslim preaches a sermon about a long list of atrocities committed by Israel against Muslims. All backed up by solid fact. Then uses these historical and verified incidents, along with various statements from the Koran, to mark Jews as Zionist and Infidels.

A Hindu preaches a sermon about a long list of atrocities committed by Muslims against Hindus. All backed up by solid fact. ....

Ok, I'm going to stop there, you get the idea. It's repetitive and could go on forever. Each of these sermons is backed up by fact and would certainly be considered "rational" by a big hunk of the population in some nation. Each of these sermons would be considered "hate speech" by some other group. What makes you think the government will be any good at determining which ones are really "rational" and which ones should be forbidden?

For an example that we see quite frequently here in the united states, what about Scientology? The church of Scientology LOVES to prosecute people for saying they are a dangerous cult. They do not WANT to this concept to be argued over in the marketplace of ideas. They want it stomped dead before anyone can hear it.

And that is what the "defamation of religions" act is all about. They don't want you to be able to say you think a religion is wrong or bad. And that idea is just about as far wrong as it's possible to get. If a religion can't handle anyone objecting to it, then it didn't deserve to survive.

TIGERassault wrote:But I don't see how that's related to the matter at hand. Dawkins has clearly rational and valid critisisms, and so won't be affected.

That's exactly the point, Tiger.

Judgements of whether someone's statement is rational or irrational, valid or invalid, moronic or profound, hateful or kind, criminal or simply critiquing... that's the job of society, not government. If there's a whacko out there spewing garbage, it's my job to tell him and everyone else how evil that message is.

If it's simply speech (not a threat or a crime), the government should never be involved. Very, very bad things begin to happen when governments start getting involved in regulating what people can and can't say. Not just issues of censorship, either... the integrity of one's government is supported by the right of the people to stand up and declare it when they think something is wrong or immoral, even (especially!) if the powers-that-be don't like it.

-----------

Here's an example:

My wife and I recently took some open-discussion classes on the fundamental differences between various faiths (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.) It was a good course, the instructor was completely respectful and factual... but there were of course lots of questions along the lines of "How could they believe both 'x' and 'y'?"

Now, would I trust that a government agent who came in and was trying to evaluate the speech in that classroom would correctly interpret it? Even if so, would I trust that by the time his report got up through the beauracracy, those questions wouldn't be seen as hate speech? Hell, no... I've been around long enough to know how easily speech can be misconstrued.

-----------

TIGERassault wrote:Actually, the US is one of the few countries that hasn't got some sort of law prohibiting hate speech against racial, ethnic, or religious groups.

Here's what bothers me about this act: it equates protection from hateful/offensive/moronic action with protection from hateful/offensive/moronic speech. Yes, the US of course has laws about hate crimes! However, we're careful not to start down the path where government begins regulating speech.

The first amendment to our Constitution was put in place for very very good reasons; the people who wrote it had experienced a government where they didn't have the right to speak out about things they considered immoral.

[Edit: D'oh, Kilarin responded while I was typing. ]

--------

[Edit: Here's another example, probably the best personal one I have:

There's a guy who used to show up at my university every other day when I was in college, and loudly preach his whacko ideals. So there was often a crowd, and the reasonable/rational people would debate with him.

Would I rather have had the government step in and shut him up? Sure, sometimes that would have been nice (the guy was really annoying).

But would that be the best? No! Just the fact that this guy was there, and that I regularly heard the debate with the people standing up to him... was actually a good thing. It was a learning experience for many including myself, and the debaters did a much better job of denouncing his B.S. than any law enforcement could have.]

You said it better Foil!

One more point on this. The church that I belong to has been called (and is sometimes STILL called) a cult. Walter Martin included us as a cult in the first addition of his book \"Kingdom of the Cults\". Needless to say, my church wasn't exactly thrilled about being \"defamed\" this way.

BUT my church has a long history of defending religious liberty. So they didn't attempt to get the law to attack Walter Martin, or try to get his book banned, or to sue him for a bajillion dollars. Instead they invited him to have a discussion and detailed study on what we believed. Walter Martin changed his mind and decided that while we were certainly \"odd\", we weren't a \"cult\".

Open DISCUSSION is the proper response when someone \"defames\" your religion. In the context of discussion, some may be convinced that you are right. Those who won't certainly weren't going to have their minds changed by legal action. And EVERYONE gets a chance to hear both sides of the argument and make up their own minds about who is right and who is wrong.

There is a difference between laws protecting people from religious discrimination, and limiting free speech. I should be allowed to say that Christianity is total crap, but I should not be allowed to open a club banning you from entry due to your beliefs.

Kilarin wrote:You said it better Foil!

One more point on this. The church that I belong to has been called (and is sometimes STILL called) a cult. Walter Martin included us as a cult in the first addition of his book "Kingdom of the Cults". Needless to say, my church wasn't exactly thrilled about being "defamed" this way.

BUT my church has a long history of defending religious liberty. So they didn't attempt to get the law to attack Walter Martin, or try to get his book banned, or to sue him for a bajillion dollars. Instead they invited him to have a discussion and detailed study on what we believed. Walter Martin changed his mind and decided that while we were certainly "odd", we weren't a "cult".

Cults are just religions that are not mainstream. If Christianity only had a few thousand members in a country of thirty million scientologists, Christianity would be considered a cult.

In fact, teh wiki says it perfectly:

Teh Wiki wrote:"Cult" typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding population considers to be outside the mainstream.

If you think about it, Lutheranism was a cult in the 1500s because of the catholic dominated European population.

Dakatsu wrote:....but I should not be allowed to open a club banning you from entry due to your beliefs.

uh dude... that's what clubs are about. About special rights and privileges. I don't see you screaming about grocery store club cards. If you don't have them, you don't get the price breaks. ... I guess people have forgotten that in the last 20 years.

And no. Luther was not a cult. He was a single man. He posted scripture in German so the average person could read it. He was considered a heretic and dissident by the Church but but not a cult. The Lutheran denomination wasn't formed a good deal later (I don't know the exact date) but followed pretty closely to Catholicism. So was Jesus for that matter.

Duper wrote:

Dakatsu wrote:....but I should not be allowed to open a club banning you from entry due to your beliefs.

uh dude... that's what clubs are about. About special rights and privileges. I don't see you screaming about grocery store club cards. If you don't have them, you don't get the price breaks. ... I guess people have forgotten that in the last 20 years.

See, there's a difference between someone not being in a certain club because the club owners didn't like his religious beliefs and someone not being in a certain club because they never signed up for it.

Clubs can discriminate on any basis they want, as long as they don’t take government (taxpayer) funding.

I guess I should of said buisness, I kinda got the South Park episode stuck in my head with the \"Fruity little club\" Discrimination from employment due to religion is wrong, period.

The Lutheran denomination wasn't formed a good deal later (I don't know the exact date) but followed pretty closely to Catholicism.

I admit I was wrong here. I thought it spread very slowly, and was not as lightning as it was.

A good example of what I am trying to put forth is Mormonism, which was once considered a cult, but now is considered a religion with over 17,000 people. The only difference between cults and religions is the amount of followers.

Clubs can discriminate on any basis they want, as long as they don’t take government (taxpayer) funding.

The Boy Scouts of America discriminate based on sexuality and religion, and I think they get government funding.
(not to mention they discriminate based on gender)

But there's the GIRLscouts too. This is Soo messed up that it needs another thread. really. boys feel they should be in girlscouts and girls feel they should be in boyscouts. It's abject foolishness to play the discrimination card here. They two groups were created to avoid this very thing. But hey we're Americans (or some of us are here on this board)We're entitled to and Freekin thing we want cuz the First amendment says so!

Duper wrote:But there's the GIRLscouts too. This is Soo messed up that it needs another thread. really. boys feel they should be in girlscouts and girls feel they should be in boyscouts. It's abject foolishness to play the discrimination card here. They two groups were created to avoid this very thing. But hey we're Americans (or some of us are here on this board)We're entitled to and Freekin thing we want cuz the First amendment says so!

In case you didn't notice the face next to the last line, that was sarcastic, and was supposed to be funny based on the title of the club being Boy Scouts. Funny how you had no remark on the fact they discriminate on religion and sexuality, but on a joke.

Since when do the Boy Scouts discriminate based on religion?

whoops! I Did miss the sarcasm. I apologize Daka. Sorry you had to point that out.

(been a lousy weekend on the whole).

Spidey wrote:Since when do the Boy Scouts discriminate based on religion?

Boy Scouts of America wrote:Scouting maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise, the member declares, "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law." The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgement of his favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members. No matter what religious faith a Scout might be, this fundamental need of good citizenship should be kept before him. The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and the organization of the group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.

Although they don't ask, they also don't allow atheists and such, meaning if it did come to light, they would be kicked out of the organization. They have kicked many members out for not believing in God. Kinda lame if you ask me, as I once thought of joining (that was a long time ago, around 2001-2002).

Duper wrote:whoops! I Did miss the sarcasm. I apologize Daka. Sorry you had to point that out.

You should! Do you know how much closer to Carpal Tunnel I am? Apology accepted of course, no oh-fence taken.

Someone call the waahmbulance.

I never knew that about the Boy Scouts. My dad was an Eagle Scout (before my time), but I was never involved in it. I've always had a high opinion of the Boy Scouts, though. A lot of kids around here could have used an influence like that. Instead they're running wild and outdoing themselves and each other in getting into trouble. A lot of kids (and teenagers) seem to get together primarily for the purpose of encouraging one another in pushing the limits. Whoever is the least constrained is the coolest. That's a recipe for disaster. The Boy Scouts have spared themselves this, to some degree, in aiming for a membership that observes a higher authority and therefor an absolute morality. Personally I'm elated every time I hear that the Boy Scouts haven't changed their creeds to suit popular social depravities. It seems like almost everyone else has. They've gotta be doing something right.

Wow, how did we divert to the topic of employment discrimination out of a discussion about freedom of speech?

Those are two very different subjects.

P.S. It's important that private organizations (especially religiously-related ones such as churches or the Atheist Alliance) have the right to hire based on the applicant's faith. The laws against religious discrimination apply when talking about government and related positions.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Personally I'm elated every time I hear that the Boy Scouts haven't changed their creeds to suit popular social depravities. It seems like almost everyone else has. They've gotta be doing something right.

Coming up next: "Boy Scouts should have slaves"

Foil wrote:Wow, how did we divert to the topic of employment discrimination out of a discussion about freedom of speech?

Those are two very different subjects.

Because we didn't. We got the topic of employment discrimination from the origional topic itself.

Dakatsu & Tiger: Remember, guys... the Boy Scouts is a private organization. Whatever you may think about it, they have (and should have) the right to operate under whatever rules they deem fit.

...And back to the topic of freedom of speech, you have the right to voice your opinion about it.

--------

Conversely...

If you decided to create an \"Atheist Scouts\", you would absolutely have the right to determine membership based on religious belief (or non-belief, as it were). The last thing you would want is for the government to step in and tell you that you had to let Christians in, right?

...And again back to the topic of freedom of speech, I would have the right to voice my opinion, too.

TIGERassault wrote:

Foil wrote:Wow, how did we divert to the topic of employment discrimination out of a discussion about freedom of speech?

Those are two very different subjects.

Because we didn't. We got the topic of employment discrimination from the origional topic itself.

How so?

Is it only employment? I thought we were talking about members. Any Boy Scout is a member, right?

TIGERassault, how do you draw a connection between anti-homosexuality, anti-atheism and pro-slavery? You want to tell me where that bull★■◆● hails from? I guess you must be accusing me of being some fool who is opposed to change for change's sake, latching onto some period in history as a model for perfection or semi-perfection?

Chew on this: I don't think \"slavery\" itself is evil, I think it's a system under which corrupt men are prone to abuse those over which they have absolute control. Having said that, I do think the slave trade itself was wrong. (Not something I've given a whole lot of thought to.)

Foil,

I totally agree with what you're saying about being a private organization. But it would seem that many citizens of the USA and the ACLU (DOH! thx Foil ) do not agree as they constantly level lawsuits of discrimination against such groups. (not just the boyscouts).

So to bring the full circle.. thus limiting if not outright crushing free speech. (that's a very poor example of free speech as it entails more than speech.. etc..)

Duper wrote:But it would seem that many citizens of the USA and the UCLA do not agree...

You mean the ACLU?

Yep, as much as they advocate freedoms of speech and religion, they often end up fighting against it.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:TIGERassault, how do you draw a connection between anti-homosexuality, anti-atheism and pro-slavery? You want to tell me where that ***** hails from?

Simple. They're all social depravities.
Although the slavery comment was sarcasm trying to prove a point that depravities are things to be discouraged and not ignored. I wasn't expecting you to be in any way supportive of slavery.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I guess you must be accusing me of being some fool who is opposed to change for change's sake,

N- er, yes, actually. Unless you've got some good reason to think Scouts should remain anti-atheist.

Foil wrote:Whatever you may think about it, they have (and should have) the right to operate under whatever rules they deem fit.

The "should have" is the part I'm debating against.