Blasphemy Resolution Passes U.N. Committee

Adelle M. Banks
Religion News Service

A resolution combating the "vilification of religions" was adopted Tuesday by a United Nations committee, but religious freedom advocates who oppose the measure say support for it continues to diminish.

The resolution by Islamic countries is scheduled to be considered by the U.N. General Assembly in December.

The vote -- 76 yes, 64 no, and 42 abstentions -- received fewer affirmative votes than last year, said Freedom House, a human rights group that has worked against the resolution.

"We are disappointed that this pernicious resolution has passed yet again, despite strong evidence that legal measures to restrict speech are both ineffective and a direct violation of freedom of expression," said Paula Schriefer, director of advocacy at Freedom House.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent bipartisan panel, said the measure's diminished support shows some countries think the resolution can do more harm than good.

"Religious intolerance is best fought through efforts to encourage respect for every individual's human rights, not through national or international anti-blasphemy laws," said USCIRF Chair Leonard Leo.

Days before its passage, the Organization of the Islamic Conference relabeled the resolution as condemning "vilification of religions" instead of "defamation of religions," but U.S. officials and advocates continued to oppose it.

"We are disappointed to see that despite our efforts and discussions on this resolution, the text once again seems to take us farther apart, rather than helping to bridge the historical divides," said John F. Sammis, an official of the U.S. Mission to the U.N., told the committee
considering the resolution. "Most importantly, the resolution still seeks to curtail and penalize speech."

Comments

[overcat]

05:17 AM on 12/17/2010

"Most importantly, the resolution still seeks to curtail and penalize speech."

Of course it does, because puny, limited, pathetic, theocratic minds feel more threatened by any expression of dissension than anything else. It's about "if you criticize, you deserve to die".

[SadieMae23]

03:40 PM on 11/30/2010

I hope for a day when people can finally free themselves from the shackles of Imams and Priests and Rabbis and the rest of that foul superstitious bric a brac
I hope one day we - as a species - can look back on these fairy stories we call religion and see them for the meaningless, bigoted myths they are.

[messy]

08:18 AM on 12/16/2010

Right, and we can start by banning yours.

[SadieMae23]

08:17 PM on 12/16/2010

banning my what?

[Jan Allen McDaniel]

11:46 AM on 11/30/2010

Individual pieces of a puzzle make no sense. Their significance is visible only when one has a framework to place them in. This resolution is a response to the growing Muslim demand for Islamic reform to separate religion from politics.

This is an OIC effort to maintain Islamic theology above criticism--and change. These Muslim leaders have seen what happened to Christianity in its collision with science and modernity and Enlightenment values. They do not want that for Islam.

They value science for better weapons, but not when it challenges notions such as a Koran delivered by an angel, flying horses, jinns, and a physical heaven and hell.

They fear that ordinary Muslims may become as secular as their Western counterparts if supernatural fears are debunked. Without fear, what keeps one religious? They believe a secular Muslim is apostate.

The OIC resolution is aimed at wavering Muslims as much as at non-Muslim criticism of Islam, and demonstrates once again why Saudi Arabia created the OIC.

For more: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/islamists-know-a-western-civilization-secret-progress-makes-religion-decline/

[messy]

08:18 AM on 12/16/2010

Fear was always the core of religion. After all, who WANTS to go to HELL?

[Jan Allen McDaniel]

09:48 AM on 12/16/2010

F/F

I have neglected too long telling you how much I enjoy your posts.

Back to the subject and beyond--this issue connects to the arguments about whether or not Bhuddism is a religion. For the most part, I say no.

[anitaj]

02:07 PM on 11/29/2010

Only false gods are laughed off their pedistals.

[elijah24]

02:38 PM on 11/30/2010

All gods should be laughed off of their pedistals.

[SadieMae23]

03:32 PM on 11/30/2010

Is there any other kind?

[Schweik]

11:36 AM on 11/29/2010

This shameful and exceedingl­y dangerous resolution gives the fundamenta­lists encouragement ( as if they needed any more) to stone, but.cher and be-head those who disagree with their dogma.

[Manny Peddy]

12:03 PM on 12/16/2010

I agree. I am horrified.

[Schweik]

11:35 AM on 11/29/2010

This shameful and exceedingly dangerous resolution gives the demented fundamentalists imprimatur to stone,and but.cher and be.head those who disagree with their primitive dogma.

[Schweik]

11:15 AM on 11/29/2010

How about giving those who criticize religious irrationalities some protection!!!
Certainly, Organization of the Islamic Conference definitely uninterested in that.
And this is why this resolution is hypocritical, detestable and hazardous.

[nycpaladin]

11:30 AM on 11/29/2010

Why would Islamic Conference countries possibly be interested in giving non religious citizens or religious minorities protection? For these countries, Islam is about controlling their masses both religiously and secularly, as well as any other aspect of their lives. It always has been, whether an Islamic country considers itself "theocratic" or not. They consider any weakening of that to be a threat.

[Schweik]

11:34 AM on 11/29/2010

Exactly.!

[Schweik]

11:10 AM on 11/29/2010

Dhimmi Dummies.

[iskra]

10:05 AM on 11/29/2010

Religion has always claimed a special pass to prevent criticism. 

What's sad here is that the U.N. would agree. The fundamental right to speak out freely against oppression of any kind should be treasured not given away to those claiming to have a 'higher knowledge' than others. 

Seems we're moving backwards here.

[Schweik]

11:15 AM on 11/29/2010

Well put.

[Zanubiyah]

07:41 AM on 11/29/2010

No one opposes the villification of Jews laws in Europe. It is against the law to publicly deny the Holocaust in some European nations. It is against the law to wear certian garments, symbols...etc as it might offend the 'sensitivities' of certian people. I 'hear' many people oppose them, but I dont see a mounted effort by the same people who oppose the OIC effort speaking in thier own nations against thier own nation's laws.

To me, this is the same thing as the OIC passed through the UN. Simply, because those affected in Europe are religious Jews, and not Hebrews, those who call themselves 'ethnic Jews'

I think that the opposition groups for the most part want to be able to condmn anything not affilated with thier religion, including other religions.

[Schweik]

11:17 AM on 11/29/2010

Ho0locaust was a real event, not comparable to protests against medieval Shariat oppression of women.

[Nabil Muhammad]

11:48 AM on 11/30/2010

"vilification of a religion" is not equal to "protest against medieval shariat oppression of women" wouldn't you say?

[camus12]

04:41 PM on 11/29/2010

it is not about the jews here miss brain washed ... unable to critize your religion and its followers even when what they do is non sense...

[Zanubiyah]

06:08 PM on 11/29/2010

camus...

Really now...name calling. Come one, you would expect someone who disagrees with me to simply state why.

This is, you CANT refute what I say, because it would seem that you have a double standard.

[Nabil Muhammad]

11:51 AM on 11/30/2010

now, I think that's uncalled for, camus12, you should address the issues Zanubiyah has highlighted and shouldn't resort to infantile name calling to make your point.

[Mark Webber]

06:28 AM on 11/29/2010

Remember, it is ok for toxic ideas to exists as long as it is someone's believe system. An example of yellow political correctness turning into law.

[Nabil Muhammad]

12:03 PM on 11/30/2010

but it's not "ok for toxic ideas to exists as long as it is someone's believe system".
you're misrepresenting the position of this issue.

[Chroesus]

10:16 PM on 11/28/2010

It is high time that we respect individual human rights world wide. Depriving people of the right to criticize religion, which I personally believe to be superstitious non-sense, will only make the worlds progress towards reason and reality harder. But , said progress is inevitable.

[KevinNevada]

11:40 PM on 11/28/2010

Well, precisely right. This is the reason that no Islamic nation has ratified the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which amongst other things calls for freedom to choose to join - or to leave - any religious affiliation.
Islam denies that right to their own members. "Apostasy" is to be punished by death. That is clear in their holiest book, without any ambiguity. (A large portion of the Islamic texts are a bit vague on some details. Not on this point, however.)

[Zanubiyah]

07:45 AM on 11/29/2010

Kevin...

Would 'apocticy' be the same as 'paganism' in Christianity? Doesnt the Bible say to 'Kill everyone who doesnt worship the God of Israel"?

So...if you are going to critisize Islam...please take notice that most of the opposition are from nations with a Christian populations who have also used thier 'missionary skills' to wipe out cultures.

[EyesWideShut7]

08:32 PM on 11/29/2010

Right! I'm glad I live in a country where I can speak my mind (without harassing anyone), worship whichever God I want, or not worship a God. Also I am glad that I have the freedom to join a church that treats me as an equal to man because that is what I am. I will never subdue to a man. Other countries don't want to give up their control.

[RedRat]

08:08 PM on 11/28/2010

But that is what religions want, to prevent speech that doesn't conform to their particular religion. Religion has never been about free speech, just the opposite. The whole idea of religion is to remove freedom--freedom for them is to do and say as I do. After all God has revealed truth to us, there is no need for your "facts". Nothing really new here.

[KevinNevada]

03:58 PM on 11/28/2010

I say we can only support this harmful resolution if it explicitly recognizes the superiority and awesomeness of the His Noodliness, the FSM. Ramen!

[Chroesus]

10:17 PM on 11/28/2010

Ramen, brother!

[Schweik]

11:54 AM on 11/29/2010

Allow Snackbar.

[Acadieman]

09:08 AM on 12/01/2010

Mine beer volcano overfloweth!

[Bruhn]

02:12 PM on 11/28/2010

it's the beginning of the end of the UN

[Jan Allen McDaniel]

02:38 PM on 11/29/2010

Maybe, but the OIC has been saying that they wouldn't abide by the free speech elements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since1984 and codified that refusal in 1990 in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam:


CAIRO DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN ISLAM

Organization of the Islamic Conference, 1990

Preamble: Believing that fundamental rights and universal freedoms in Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them or ignore them as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible—and the Ummah collectively responsible—for their safeguard.”

Opening line: “Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation…and the role that this Ummah should play to guide a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies…”

What has changed is that now they want the UN to enforce the Cairo Declaration rather than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Cairo Declaration is a condensation of the Sharia law on human rights, with no changes.