“A powerful bloc of 57 Islamic states is again pushing for the UN to make it a criminal offense to criticise or ‘defame’ Islam,” according to Yahoo News.
Though the 57 nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc which also dominates the UN’s Human Rights Council, have been lobbying for the move since 1999, the signs this time are that the resolution could well be made binding. While the resolution calls for protection against “defamation” of all religions, it only mentions Islam by name.
The resolution deems offending Islamic sensitivities a “serious affront to human dignity” which could lead to “social disharmony”, “violations of human rights” and “incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam in particular”. If passed, the resulting binding resolution would find its way into various UN documents all of which would require that UN member states at “local, national and international levels” start restricting the free speech of citizens to prevent public criticism of religious beliefs, particularly Islamic belief.
This is something both atheists and Christians can oppose together. For atheists, it means we would be unable to speak our minds about Islam. For Christians, it would mean the inability to preach to Muslims or criticize their religion. For ex-Muslims, it would mean being unable to speak openly about past experiences — even in non-Muslim countries. If this resolution was passed, it could be a massive blow to freedom of speech and thought.
Freedom of speech is a two way street. Muslims can’t use it to preach their religion and criticize other religious beliefs, yet have their own religion closed to criticism.
If we value truth, nothing should be closed to criticism. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”
No one should ever be silenced or jailed for questioning or criticizing ideas. We know where that leads — just look at the Middle Ages. When it comes to freedom of speech, modern Christianity and Atheism is often on the same side — we both value freedom of speech and religion (or from religion).
Yet Islam seems to be curiously unsupportive of this freedom. “In thinking about Islam,” Sam Harris said in The End of Faith, “and about the risk it now poses to the West, we should imagine what it would take to live peacefully with the Christians in the fourteenth century—Christians who were still eager to prosecute people for crimes like host desecration and witchcraft. We are in the presence of the past.”
Update: The proposal has been rejected by the UN. Score one for reason and liberty! James Randi writes:
Proposals that would have banned “defamation of religion” were formally rejected by United Nations international bodies this week…. The proposal failed to earn sufficient votes in the UN General Assembly to become a binding resolution, and it will not be on the agenda at the next conference, slated for Geneva in April. Doubtless, it will be again proposed in the future, as zealots seek to promote their discriminatory agendas….
The basic principle of freedom of speech, conscience, and expression – so far as the UN is concerned – has been once again upheld.
JonJon: I agree. 
Siberia: That’s a question I always ask myself, though in other contexts, would I still be me if I’d... 
Mark Mukasa: I love the Paine pun. xD Awesome article. 
mikespeir: Amen, and amen. 
nomad: “Which is really unexpected and fascinating, when you think about it.” And don’t forget... 
Jabster: @JonJon That’s not something that is limited to theocratic societies but includes any society in which... 
95 Comments
Christopher Hitchens wrote a piece about this in Slate recently: http://www.slate.com/id/2212662/
I sincerely hope that this resolution is destroyed as soon as possible. It is an offense to the freedom of western society that this ridiculous drivel is even being considered.
If this does come to pass, it only serves to demonstrate the utter failing of the United Nations. It was established as an organisation dedicated to the protection of freedom and the opposition against tyranny. Now it has been subverted and is used as an instrument of oppression and the spread of islamic poison.
Protecting Islam from critique is just a secondary purpose of this proposal. The primary purpose is to make it easier for oppressive regimes to shut up loud-mouthed dissidents, whether they are criticizing Islam or the government. At least, that’s how it will be used.
This is not about ensuring human rights, quite the contrary.
That resolution is absolutely absurd. This is an opportunistic bit of sophistry that, much like the jingoism and acquiescence to the “War on Terror” here, cravenly uses the terrorist attacks of 9/11 (and, in this case, the reactions thereafter) as an excuse to try to sneak in some resolution that, as trj pointed out, is more about repressive regimes. This is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Can I direct your UK readers to a petition calling for the government to reject this nonsense?
After that they’re hoping to make it illegal to criticize people who watch reality television, because they really like John and Kate Plus Eight and they don’t like people that people keep making fun of them about it…
ugh! How can the UN even consider something so blatantly divisive and discriminatory – have they forgotten what the ‘U’ stands for ?
Will President Obama have the balls to denounce this publicly?
I doubt it. Many western leftists view Islam as being a religion of “people of color” and saying anything negative about non-white people is scene as racist.
Luckily, the United States ignores UN resolutions that it finds not useful. :)
Looks like it didn’t pass:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/487-a-u-n-victory-for-reason.html
I find it funny how similar to modern liberals these Muslims sound. One has to accept this as the logical conclusion of modern liberal multiculturalism. Of course in keeping with the law of unforeseen consequences multiculturalism serves a cause that has nothing to do with liberalism.
I would also see this as an example of how the UN itself is a threat to freedom. Do you really want to be in a situation where Islamic authoritarian regimes can act to make something law in the United States? It is bad enough having to worry about fundamentalists who are American citizens. I would even go so far as to say that being in the UN goes against the constitution the moment that the issue of the UN being able to pass laws binding on American citizens. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the UN can make laws. That power lies with Congress.
I am a Christian (although I reject traditional Christianity and the inerrancy of the Bible outright) and I agree 100%.
People have the fundamental right to challenge any and all religions——-period.
Any religion that’s wants to control the views and words of others and asks to be exempt from intellectual challenge is surely false.
I enjoy this site and agree with about 95% of what you say.
Thanks
Let’s assume they were to pass such a resolution which essentially outlawed the (outward) speaking against Islam. Would such a law change how any of us actually feels about Islam on the inside? No, in fact it would only make it worse. This is the hypocrisy of religion. It’s all external, and thus meaningless, no inner transformation. This is why Christ called the religious leaders of the day “white-washed sepulchre’s” (tombs) cuz there was no life IN them, they were dead men, it was all external, dogmatic rule keeping that they practiced.
Christ offers the opposite, an internal change of nature, His which is love dominant accompanied by mercy, forgiveness, compassion & wisdom.
Religion=external, oppressive, burdensome
Christ=internal, transformative, liberating
Here we have to question WHY we seem to have it pre-programmed into our consciousnesses that we dare not question or insult religions whereas everything else is fare game. Many have argued that there IS no good reason. I would argue that, from an evolutionary standpoint, people who have questioned or insulted religions in the past have been slaughtered in most undignified ways. So, people who have been scared shitless about insulting any religion would be favored in the gene pool.
However, the time has come to begin the end of this nonsense. First of all, it is clear that it is hypocritical for Islamists to say that their religion cannot be insulted while every other religion can. Secondly, it is one thing to be afraid of insulting, but making that fear a public policy is dangerous in the extreme. The fact remains that in a civilized world, freedom of speech should, if not actually endorsed, at least not stomped upon by the supposed governing body of the world.
The discussion of the negative effects of religion may still be feared, whatever the faith. But legislating this fear to the detriment of Free Speech is unacceptable in the extreme.
I think your light bulb id broken.
In a way, it’s almost a pity it didn’t get through (read on before flaming me…).
It mentioned Islam by name, but it covered defamation of all religions. If passed, it would have made criminals out of all the Muslims who defame Christianity or other religions. Two-way street.
Have a look and listen here for some interesting thoughts: http://www.patcondell.net/
While I, for one, appreciate any slamming of Islam, it is worth noting that Russia supported this measure as well. Russia, where it is a crime to proselytize for religions not approved of by the state which amounts to the persecution of non traditional Christians like JWs. Like another commenter said, it would have been used to clamp down on all speech deemed potentially harmful to regimes. A lot of the people sitting in jails in Muslim countries for blasphemy are *MUSLIMS* not the dhimmis, just like the majoritiy of victims of Muslim terror are other Muslims. The people most harmed by attempts to implement ‘Shariah’ are Muslims, not non Muslims living in those countries. It’s okay to mention this… to stand up for Muslims too.
This is fear-mongering, Daniel.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/talk_fast_we_might_be_criminal.php#comment-1430899
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/talk_fast_we_might_be_criminal.php#comment-1431783
This is a non-binding resolution, the Islamic countries have introduced it several times in the past and it has always failed, it got even fewer votes this time than before so it’s truly a losing idea, the Western democracies have always voted against it, it has no chance of passing, and even if it ever did it’s still non-binding.
I see this post is tagged “Libertarianism.” That would explain the uncritical overreaction to a story containing the letters “UN.”
Obviously, any resolution or law limiting criticism of religion is a bad idea. Even believers must realize that limiting free speech on religion limits their ability to convinvce others that they have the “one true faith.”
We have a much milder form of this phenomena in the US though. For some reason, that I haven’t put my finger on yet, I see pressure to address issues of faith with “respect” and “in the right tone.” While this certainly doesn’t rise to the level of official censorship, I find this collective attempt to change the discussion interesting.
I recently blogged about it here:
http://billpost.blogspot.com/2009/03/watch-your-tone.html
We are headed to another middle ages, and ironically its atheists taking us there! No you, but Barack Obama and his ilk. Oh yeah, he claims to be a Christian. Yeah right.
OK, at the risk of just looking very stupid, why am I unable to find any confirmation of this anywhere? All I can find is that the Human Rights Council PASSED this resolution (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRHXSIoJJdXQpG3kPrRO2LWMnWTAD975RDM00) but nothing about the General Assembly rejecting it, as Randi states on his site.
http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2008/01/02/defamation-of-religion-becomes-un-resolution/
hmm.. several sources say it has passed
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL3041411220070330
Looks like Randi doesn’t owe himself a million dollars afterall :)
a sad day for reason and freedom of speech
The thing that bothers me the most about this is the way that preventing criticism and debate are justified using the language of tolerance and liberalism. Religion is considered out of bounds for any kind of critical discussion, because we have to be “respectful” and “open-minded”. When of course, this attitude is anything but liberal, and only serves to silence dissent. It’s really kind of Orwellian and creepy.
I’d like to propose another UN resolution that says you’re not allowed to pick an argument with an atheist about their beliefs. You might hurt our feelings with your insensitivity and lack of respect for our ancient and venerable culture.
I think the Randi article is talking about it failing to go through the general assembly.
From http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL3041411220070330 :
“The resolution is tabled in the expectation that it will compel the international community to acknowledge and address the disturbing phenomena of the defamation of religions, especially Islam,” said Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
Making it a crime to criticize anybody is a crime itself. As silly as I happen to find some of the comments here, and the slander of Christians in general, I respect your right to say it freely.
And note, it doesn’t hurt my feelings when you make fun of my beliefs. I’m laughing just as hard at you (to myself). The only difference is that I’m not publicly insulting you for your beliefs. I personally don’t care whether or not you believe in God. Not all Christians are the same either friend. Some of us try to live how we think we should according to our beliefs and don’t judge others when they aren’t harming anyone else.
I’m sorry but a nonbinding UN resolution. Talk about doubly irrelevant. I can’t imagine any document being more impotent. I hope they don’t waste paper printing those things out.
@ Jimmy:
Of course it’s good that it wouldn’t actually do anything ‘binding’ by being passed, but don’t you understand that what we’re protesting here (as I see it, anyone feel free to contradict me – it’s your right! :) is that these people have the audacity to press for such a thing in the first place? The attitudes and the flawed mindset it represents. And also how it could pose further and much more real dangers for us in the future.
I got this response from a friend in Pakistan when I uploaded a few ‘Jesus and Mo’ comics to the ‘F*ck Religion’ group that I am a part of. I have posted notes and pictures criticising Christianity in the same way before, however of course that wasn’t offensive, seeing as it wasn’t the “Truth” I suppose… I find it quite interesting that he assumed I was against Christianity but not Islam? I didn’t tell him merely that I disagreed with religion, but that I DID NOT BELIEVE IN ANY GOD…
-
“The comic you’ve got on ur page is THE most vile and idiotic things i’ve ever seen… I thought that u’ve got ur own views about religion, nd that’s ok… But i didn’t know that they so stupid, ignorant and pathetic as you just showed!
You live in ur own balloon of selfishness, hatred, and cruelty to all that was born good and that which wanted good and harmony for everything else!
I’m really hurt by this caliber of foolishness that you just showed. You watch the manipulated media and think that they tell you the Truth about my Beautiful Religion. You believe in lies and adopt the barbaric ways of the media and you think that we are the “illiterate” ones! Huh!
Maybe it’s time that you understand a little of the Truth so that you may at least understand what’s really going on…”
-
My friend, I would LOVE to know what’s really going on! But I doubt you would be able to tell me…
Yet this is exactly what Christians practiced throughout the ages only the punishment back in the good old days were the stake or other forgiving and tolerant tortures. It is always right to fight these religious dictatorships.
cqtHBh comment4 ,
” I sincerely hope that this resolution is destroyed as soon as possible. It is an offense to the freedom of western society that this ridiculous drivel is even being considered. ”
mark: In opposition to this UN legislation, why dont athiest, christians and other types believers point out the well documentent abuses against non muslims by muslim countries and communities.
Why dont they point out the clear hatred that some muslim communities and countries preach against all non muslims.
It was established as an organization dedicated to the protection of freedom and the opposition against tyranny. Now it has been subverted and is used as an instrument of oppression and the spread of Islamic poison.
Wha…? It was established as a permanent and direct diplomatic avenue to facilitate communication, especially between nations that otherwise might be on the verge of immolating each other with nuclear weapons.
The whole freedom thing is just us projecting. Many of its member countries do not believe in the same principles of freedom, nor are they required to.
linkb0rk ):
Which gives Obama an advantage here, don’t you think?
Unfortunately, I don’t think he will either. After the stupidity we’ve committed in the Middle East, I believe Obama is trying to go for a softer approach this time and I doubt he’ll damage public relations by criticizing them.
The main reason is fear. Islam has become so incredibly dangerous it’s like going to China and insulting communism. Speaking out against Islam is the equivalent of painting a giant target on your population.
Unfortunately, this is a difficult challenge to overcome. Do we do the right thing and speak out against the injustice and tyranny that Muslim countries are inflicting on innocents at the cost of our safety, or do we back down and allow this evil to spread in hopes that we might be passed over when selecting targets?
I believe the US has an obligation to speak harshly against this. As a country founded on freedom and tolerance, we can’t sit back while this injustice spreads to an international level. We’re so hated over there anyways at this moment, I don’t think it’s possible for us to become a higher priority target.
Bill Maher has some very interesting points about this in his documentary “Religulous.” Definitely worth a watch. I can possibly get clips from it if somebody wants a preview.
Yeah, except that the UN can’t pass laws that are binding in the US, or anywhere else.
They can pass resolutions, which member governments can then sign into law using whatever system is appropriate. They can negotiate treaties, which member governments can then become signatories to. But just because the UN decides that torture should be illegal everywhere, that doesn’t require any nation to pass an anti-torture law if they don’t want to. It doesn’t even require that any country impose sanctions on a pro-torture regime.
It’s not like America joined the EU, or anything.
“I am a Christian (although I reject traditional Christianity and the inerrancy of the Bible outright) and I agree 100%.”
Why?
Knackers. :-/
Petition: Up yours, islamic censorship
That should work.
*boggle*
Perhaps L is one of those “atheistic christians” (again: *boggle*)
Because anyone can pick and choose what they want to believe in and essentially make up their own religion and still somehow believe that they have discovered the truth.
So John…how has this conversion technique been working out for you. You’ve been saying essentially the same thing for months. While my eyes just glaze over when I see one of your posts, I figure it must be working out for you since you seem to do it like it’s your job. Just wondering…
John C = insipid, pointless, twaddle
OT but I had to respond to this;
“Islam has become so incredibly dangerous it’s like going to China and insulting communism. ”
As a current resident of China I can firmly say that this comparison is unfair; although China certainly doesn’t have the same sort of free speech protections that westerners are used to, but so long as you aren’t demonstrating in the streets, the party doesn’t seem to give a shit what anybody says about them.
That said I do agree with the spirit of your comment; free speech is probably the single most important component of modern civilization; without the legal ability to bring superstition out into the light, we would still be in the dark ages–which is of course what the more radical islamists/christians want.
So in the spirit of free speech; fuck that, fuck them, and fuck their supersitions.
Gee the JC I knew stood for Jean Claude. He however, thought it stood for Jesus Christ. He was of course, a surgeon.
Sure, like we can trust what you say.
You live in CHINA. You’re probably a communist spy, posting on atheist websites to steal our secrets and our women. And our jobs. And our freedom.
And our tasty tasty pies.
Mmmm, pies.
I believe the correct response is “and our precious bodily fluids”.
And our flesh, where we keep our delicious nutrients.
And our HEARTS where we keep the BABY JESUS!
But of course, superstition and truth are polar opposites, and when we can no longer tell them apart, that is the truth from the lie…then we are most pitiable.
Truth…is a Person, and so is the lie. So who you gonna believe? Christ or Self?
Oneness…that’s the ultimate solution.
Uh, I think I’ll trust me, thanks.
I can at least make a testable claim that I actually exist.
That puts me miles ahead of Christ.
I’ll stick with “self” until Christ shows up in person and gives me some reason to believe. Then I will at least listen to what he has to say.
Beat you.
I get it now, John C. C stands for Christ.
I beleeb, I beleeb. Hallelujah.
No, that’s actually my real name honestly, its just a coincidence the initials are the same. Daniel should be able to attest to this if there is transparency on the IP address with my name, idk. I actually go by my middle name though, my friends call me…Craig. So that means you have to call me…John C! lol jk
JC…errh…John C.
C’mon now you’re messing with my eternal salvation. You’re taking away my piece (sic) that passeth all understanding.
@wintermute
Lol.
Your Dr. S. reference didn’t go unappreciated.
If I didn’t know any better, that sounds like WIN.
Of course, anyone with any kind of appreciation for that irksome little thing that I usually like to call “reality” generally comes to the conclusion that it’s closer to FAIL, but YMMV…
If nobody ever responds to it, how long will it stick around?
Sorry…you guys are stuck with me until I become gainfully re-employed, lol. They are supposed to let me know tomorrow about the job, so maybe for once in your life you have a reason to pray? lol
All the best Matt man!
More name-calling, how original Nulli. I see you travel the proverbial high road of dialogue my unbelieving friend.
What’s next? Nanny nanny boo boo? Sticks & stones?
Nonetheless I appreciate the Nullify’er!
When you are capable of dialogue, perhaps people will engage you in it.
Hint: repeating the same nonsensical thing over and over again is not a conversation.
Not name calling: merely an observation.
Sunny sunny, why dos’t thou walk by the light of the dimly lit moon? For it hath no light of its own, know ye not the true light would dwell within ye??
Then thou would’st verily see indeed!
Cool beans…
–The Man who was Thursday, G.K. Chesterton
Good one Winter…now that’s a worthy contribution, I see the irony.
Chesterton was never my fav, but he will do in a pinch. But George MacDonald? Now there’s a wise old sage. He is lesser known, but oh how wonderful. You should indulge a bit, let me know what you think.
Yeah, I’ve read a little of MacDonald; The Princess and the Goblin isn’t too bad as children’s books go, though (like Lewis’ children’s fictions) it kind of beats the reader over the head with allegory and symbolism.Weighed and Wanting wasn’t too bad, but not my sort of thing.
What would you recommend of his?
Chesterton had his ups and downs, but I find Thursday to be sublime.
Depends, if you are looking to be entertained, amused or if you want more insight into the man himself. If the latter then I would recommend the George MacDonald Anthology, 365 readings, vignettes, very insightful. I think the publisher is Harper Collins, a recent reprint fairly widely available in bookstores.
It names CS Lewis on the cover, but I think that’s more for mktg purposes, Lewis’ only contribution to it as I understand is the Preface, mayne some editing.
If you do get it, check out reading # 142, let me know your thoughts.
All the best Winter…
See what you just did there with Wintermute?
That was a conversation. You should try that more often.
John:
Added it to the list. However, it’s a very long list and there’s no guarantee I’ll ever get around to it. If I could find a free edition (as copyright will have expired on anything he wrote prehumously), that would make it easier for me to start. Project Gutenberg doesn’t have that particular title, though.
Let me know if you’re aware of a free copy of the text.
Ty:
Amazing what can happen when he forgets why he’s here and allows himself to respond as if both he and his interlocutor were humans, isn’t it?
One day it will sink in, the light bulb will come on, you will say…eureka! That crazy JC was right after all!! ha
Then you will thank me, beg for forgiveness, send me your tithe’s, etc.
Make the check out to…lol.
Ah, if wishes were horses, we’d all ride…but Johnny boy would still be incomprehensible.
Its ok Nulli…it doesnt bother me cuz its impossible to offend a dead man. Now, if you can figure that last comment out you will be well on your way…to life!
Take care Nulli!!
John C, I think your light bulb is broken.
(btw, How do I get this comment in the right place or correct it?)
I hope you get the job because I don’t like to see anyone without the means to take care of themselves.
Even crackpots have to eat.
So, yes, I hope you get it regardless of how it affects your posting regularity.
Thanks TY, I really appreciate that and will take it in the sincere tone you kindly displayed.
All the best…
Ignore the above entry.
linkwerk :D
The fact that there are member countries which think this should be any kind of UN resolution which implies some level of UN support – binding or not – makes it noteworthy. It’s not fear mongering to highlight the issue.
Note: I was wrong about the measure always failing; I was counting the abstentions along with the nays but this is not how it’s supposed to be counted.
Nevertheless, it remains the case that the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly do not have the authority to issue binding resolutions. Only the Security Council has this ability, and then only on issues covered by Chapter VII, “any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression,” and even then the United States, France and Britain each permanently have veto power there.
Not really. Do you have any idea how many dumb and irrelevant resolutions are introduced by one country or another in any given year? You could make a full-time blog about such, but none of it would be newsworthy.
What’s fear-mongering here is the notion that if this passed, “it means we would be unable to speak our minds about Islam … it could be a massive blow to freedom of speech and thought.” That was never true.
Clicking through, I see that this was not produced for Yahoo News, but it’s instead an editorial piece for right-wing hyperventilationist site RealClearPolitics. Now it makes sense.
For you, maybe, yes. If you happen to live in one of those countries, perhaps this proposal is a bit more than just symbolic.
Nope. If you live in an Islamic theocracy, you’re already screwed anyway, and this resolution matters not a lick. Governments don’t need UN approval to oppress their citizens.
Yeah, he’s really a Muslim atheist Freemason reptile from the future.
Bit of a dim bulb, ain’t ya, Marci.
Yeah, um…that’s kinda hyperbolic. And utterly stupid.
Possibilities: 1, Randi is mistaken. 2, media coverage is spotty and unreliable. 3, Randi is psychic and owes himself a million dollars.
So far as I can tell, non-binding resolution 62/154 has not yet gone before the General Assembly. But even if they do pass it, it’s not going to impel anyone to do anything.
You win three Internets and a cake for that comment. :-D
Looks like the ‘precious bodily fluids’ allusions went right past everybody. lol
Slander? Since when are the criticisms from this blog worthy of the label slander? Isn’t that a bit extreme?
I would call many of the comments here extreme, but not the label “slander.” Just my opinion, but there are a lot of generalizations about Christians. In many cases, the behavior of a particular Christian or Christians is painted as the behavior of all Christians, especially in the commentary of posts, which isn’t really fair sometimes.
I personally couldn’t care less about whether or not anyone else is Christian. I am puzzled as to why anyone cares that I am.
All I care about is my personal relationship with Christ and trying to live up to His standard in my own life. A true Christian is humble that way, and loves all people, especially the ones that are most irritating.
I don’t think it is right to say bad things about Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or any religion or belief that doesn’t harm anyone. But just because it isn’t right does not make it worthy of a crime.
Can you imagine going to jail for saying something bad about someone? That is not a law that the American people will accept.
I personally think that it’s about time that we Americans stand up for our nation and say enough is enough — it’s time to restore the constitution. Our government is completely out of control, and both parties are guilty.
You don’t care that we’re all going to burn in hell for eternity?
Jerk.
Depends. Slander and libel are crimes and have been for many, many years. These are not considered to be violations of the First Amendment.
I personally think that it’s about time that we Americans stand up for our nation and say enough is enough — it’s time to restore the constitution. Our government is completely out of control, and both parties are guilty.
Regarding the topic of this blog post, read my comment above. This is not actually a proposed law.
Examples would help, please.
I bet this is a tax-exempt relationship. What a bargain. Can I get that for my “personal relationships”? If not, why not?
Most of us aren’t interested either: believe any damned thing you please. It’s when christians (or any other religious or ideological flavour) try to impose their supposedly “divine” diktats on the rest of us that some of us have issues with. q.v. the O.P.
Ah, now do we get a Real Meaning™ of True Christian™, or am I missing something? Others that consider themselves True Christians™/etc., feel free to correct/argue with Abe as to your particular nuances on the above definition, especially with regards to those qualities of being a True Christian™ that the rest of us aren’t aware of.
And when will that be, exactly?
Perhaps one might say “too late”.
Or, then again, one might say “they weren’t a True Christian™/Muslim™/Jew™/Whatever™”.
So, should we use your standard above for such a thing? Whatever precise guidelines you use to determine such a label would be invaluable to the rest of us, so that we may determine—without having to check with you real True Christians™ at every turn—as to whether our interactions are with bona fide True Christians™, or merely poor imitations. Can you point them out to us? I’m sure I speak for many here in saying that we’d be eternally grateful.
One can already. That’s what libel and slander laws are for. Then again, those are for untrue statements about people, not about the veracity of their beliefs. no matter what they’re about (politics/money/sex/cheeses/ankle shapes/stone age tree sprite/iron age bearded lightning-throwing dude/bronze age magic zombie myths, etc.).
And conflating the two doesn’t help. That’s part of the problem with this resolution in the first place.
I guess the irony of that that passed you by.
One Trackback
[...] of Islamic nations show how little they actually care about human dignity as they attempt to pass a UN resolution restricting religious criticism. Really, criticizing a religion is more of an affront to human dignity than incarcerating or even [...]