"defamation of religion" as a human rights violati

Post Reply New Topic

More special treatment for a subset of population. Notice that this UN resolution really only applies to Islam or at least no other religions sought the same special treatment by using the UN. This is an attack on the western ideas of "free speech". Lost another ounce of respect for Islam, AGAIN. Can we say, backfire.

Ok, so the resolution was proposed by Islamic countries, but where in the article does it say the resolution would apply *only* to Muslims victimized by, quite frankly, us?

And where does it say you have to learn the Koran and pray to Allah?

I too have my concerns about how far such a resolution would go. Violent acts such as burning down a church - I have no problem giving that an extra label of hate crime. Passive acts such as the Darwin emblem on my vehicle = free speech.

But a minority group, saying, "Hey, most of us aren't the fringe element you hate so much - please don't burn down our church/temple/mosque," is not the same as saying, "Be us or else."

So far, this thread is doing a fantastic job of making Pakistan's case for them.

The resolution does not call for banning freedom of speech, only hate crimes. I've experienced insults when I was a Muslim, and I'm receiving the very same insults (from Muslims) after becoming a Baha'i. Try putting yourself in my shoes.

Why can't we all get along and respect our respective faiths or beliefs without making an issue out of everything?

Why should we respect a depraved faith such as the Wahabite version of Islam? Why should we respect the Shi'ites? When the mourn Ali they cut their flesh and act insane. They also stone women to death.

You object to my making an issue out of the stonings and the beatings? And the "honor" killings?

What do YOU make an issue out of?

ruveyn

Something tells me you have never read the Talmud or the Torah. At least, not word for word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud#Att ... the_Talmud

Fact is, every major religion has some kind of "nasty" law or ritual which is subject to criticism. However, these "nasty laws" were considered prim and proper in their time, and any improvements we see today as absurd. Your religion is no exception. Nor is mine (the law on theft in Kitab-i-Aqdas is heavily criticised, for example, although I believe it would be effective after reading Jeffery Archer's prison diary).

And anyway, you always have people trying to improve the situation. Apologists and such. Take Muslims against Sharia, for example. Or Reform Judaism. Or protestantism. It's all the same - as time progressed, people were appalled with the laws and rituals with the past, not wishing to abandon their faith, it was a simple concept of "out with the old, in with the new".

As for Zanjir Zani (cutting of the flesh) and honour killings, these are not as common as you might think. The media just tends to hype these incidents. They're mere remainants of outdated rituals and customs. Quite common in the past, disappearing with the times as people become more educated. Trust in education. And free thinking. Things will change in the next few decades. For example, until 1970, the Ibadis (3rd sect of Islam) of Oman refused any "immoral" technology into their country, such as cars! And now, Oman is a highly developed country, where alcohol is sold in a bar at their main international airport! And it's just less than 100 feet away from the airport's cabin mosque! That's just one example.

True, many Muslims are still stuck in the past. But always remember Turkey. Once the stronghold of Islamic extremism, it's now the most secular country in the middle east.

Anyway, I transformed into a Baha'i because I had problems with what you mentioned, and more. But I just didn't view these as of divine origin, I saw them as innovations, by clergy.

If there's somebody you need to truly hate for this madness, hate the clergy. Don't hate the religion, or its followers. They're all stuck in a web of tradition, just as you, sir.

And most of them aren't even aware these innovations (stoning adulterers and such) exist. Just like you aren't aware of various Talmudic laws.

Last edited by Khan_Sama on 05 Apr 2009, 3:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.

I think discriminating someone based upon their religion is a violation of a personal freedom. Defamation ABOUT it is one thing, but attacking someone or a group of people of some faith based group is quite another!

But this report is just bias and kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.....



FREEDOM!! !

Cover to cover in the Hebrew and the Aramaic. Orthodox Jews base their religion on the Talmud Babli (Babylonian Talmud) and not the Torah. The Rabinnic laws completely constrain the use of violence in punishment. It is virtually impossible to get a death penalty in a rabinnic court. Biblical type punishments have not been imposed for over 2000 years among Jews.

R. Nachman once said that a rabinnic court that imposed the death penalty once in seventy years is soaked in blood.

ruveyn

I rest my case, ruveyn, as I received similar responses from Muslims when discussing the Hadith, which is nothing more than the Islamic version of the Talmud.

I just want to make it clear that while I do like Judaism and Islam, and every other religion, I dislike the clergy and their corrupt innovations.

Every religious community has progressed with the times. Unfortunately, you'll always have fanatics like the wahaabis and ultra-orthodox fanatics.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432876,00.html

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+rise+ ... TS+AFFAIRS)-a0190379262

At one time the Islamic domains lead the world in science and mathematics. In fact it was Islamic input that brought a end to the Mideval period and kick started the Renaissance. The Islamics put their own eyes out with their religious insanity and from a purely intellectual point of view Islam had gone backward from teh 13th century c.e.. They did not partake of the Enlightenment.

Now Islam leads the world in IED production and suicide-homicide bombings. The new call to prayer is the explosion of the suicide bomb belt at the door of a Mosque belonging to a rival sect.

ruveyn

Peanut allergies kill more Americans annually than terrorism.

A Muslim created the world's first allergen-free peanuts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_all ... ee_peanuts

just finished a book about Muslims (well, Arabs, but most are Muslim), and it's not all bad over there.


Actually, what kept the Muslims from keeping up was constant invasions; the Mongols (yes, Mongols) did more damage to the Levantine than we did. The Turks came through and ran the place for a few centuries, and they've been independent for less than a century. We'll see how things go.

however, that being said, if all religions are respected equally, then there wouldn't be a need for the resolution. It does sound like it's more (to coin a phrase) that 'all religions are equal, but some are more equal than others'.

The U.N. can declare whatever they want, but more importantly, U.S. citizens can declare whatever we want since our constitution protects that right. The U.S. opted out of that resolution since we are a country founded on the principals of free speech. Allah can smite whoever he wants until he gets within 30 miles of our coastline, where I can freely say that Muhammad was a drunken lying rapist who should never be trusted by anyone of even moderate intelligence.

A Muslim also created the world's second I.E.D. Also the third to the ten- thousandth.

ruveyn

If it became a human rights violation to defame religion, Islam would never be allowed to harass anyone ever again! Pass that resolution, I say!

I'm not saying I support this, but that seems to be actually the case, muslims in the US to be stigmatized after 9/11 and Islam been associated with terrorism since then, in that case I would have to agree with that, wether the term difamation does fit or not, that can be debated, but, yes, such stigma does happen, and I have seen that happening in the PPR forum as well.

Jews have been putting up with this for centuries. Now it is the turn of the American Muslims. Let them cope with it as best they can. They could start with a million Muslim march to abjure, decry and reject the extreme behaviors of the Jihadists. That would be a start. They could also have an occasional pork-chop for dinner. It wouldn't kill them.

In American, superficial assimilation is the mode of survival.

ruveyn