Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Clinton speaks against anti-defamation laws

Page 1 of 1 [ 9 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

EC
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jul 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 260
Location: Denmark

29 Oct 2009, 12:52 am

Quote:
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized on Monday an attempt by Islamic countries to prohibit defamation of religions, saying such policies would restrict free speech.

"Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies. . . . I strongly disagree," Clinton said. "The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faiths will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions."

While unnamed in Clinton's speech, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group of 56 Islamic nations, has been pushing hard for the U.N. Human Rights Council to adopt resolutions that broadly bar the defamation of religion. The effort has raised concerns that such resolutions could be used to justify crackdowns on free speech in Muslim countries.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03218.html

I personally see no reason to condemn these laws: Let the OIC ram yet another stake into the U.N's dying heart - It's just hilarious to see how low the U.N has stooped by allowing human rights abusers to represent human rights, and subsequently letting them redefine them! :lol:



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

29 Oct 2009, 2:53 am

Imagine that, I agree with Clinton on something.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

29 Oct 2009, 5:25 am

As much as I don't like motormouths like Dawkin's, I see the slippery slope principle as a possibility. Censor one persons right to speak for or against something, then another's right to speak the opposite just to be fair, then other issues after that too. Besides, if jerks like Dawkin's didn't run over at the mouth, who else would be there to present a role model for internet verbal abusers? Someone needs to set the example for militant atheists so that they remain ridiculous.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Oct 2009, 8:50 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
As much as I don't like motormouths like Dawkin's,


What is your problem with Dawkins.

ruveyn



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

29 Oct 2009, 9:12 am

I have no bone to pick with him, at least. =/



gina-ghettoprincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,669
Location: The Town That Time Forgot (UK)

29 Oct 2009, 9:24 am

What about when religions defame each other?


_________________
'El reloj, no avanza
y yo quiero ir a verte,
La clase, no acaba
y es como un semestre"


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

29 Oct 2009, 6:29 pm

ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
As much as I don't like motormouths like Dawkin's,


What is your problem with Dawkins.

ruveyn


Just one of the more vocal trolls as a example, nothing really with him in particular.



CloudWalker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 711

29 Oct 2009, 11:46 pm

"defamation of religions"? So if one religion still believes the Earth is flat, then we should burn all who dares to speak against it? Don't tell me the UN is even considering it! :?

btw is it just Clinton's own position or is it that of the whole administration?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

30 Oct 2009, 12:15 am

CloudWalker wrote:
"defamation of religions"? So if one religion still believes the Earth is flat, then we should burn all who dares to speak against it? Don't tell me the UN is even considering it! :?

btw is it just Clinton's own position or is it that of the whole administration?


Since it's being proposed by Islamic nations, it's more likely to be in support of punishing people who disagree with the Qur'an.