Posted by: Jim | December 23, 2008

Hide In Plain Site

The U.N. just rubber-stamped a non-binding resolution. The resolution provides “adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.” 


Sounds good on the face of it, no? Sure, no problem. I would sign that myself … if that was all it said.




This resolution was put forth by the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Conference. After 9/11, they felt it in their best interest to protect themselves from the shrill outcry against them. Understandable again! But there’s more …


“The religious freedom group, Christian Solidarity Worldwide [CSW], said in a statement that the text of the resolution, which calls on national governments to legislate for the protection of religion from defamation, “ultimately empower majorities against dissenters and the state against individuals.”


“Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan, Christians in Orissa, India, and Baha’is in Iran have one more reason to fear for their lives as the UN lends legitimacy to the criminalization of their peaceful speech,” she said. “States have no place determining what is and is not blasphemy,” Wu added.


Religious zealots tend to conflate peaceful speech as persecution. This very blog has been accused of “hate speech” and “persecution.” People who cling to irrational concepts will typically oppose rational discourse that contradicts them. They will call a mocking cartoon “Blasphemy” or “hate speech.” They will escalate blasphemy to something worthy of the death penalty. History is rife with examples, and holds true to non-religious but irrational concepts as well (i.e., National Socialism). The Dutch cartoons that sparked bloody uprisings a few years ago are an example of the Muslim world going bat-shit-crazy over what most of us would consider peaceful communication. Yes, the cartoons were mocking in nature, but no one should die because of it.


It is a classic move for religious zealots to seize an opportunity (like the post 9/11 prejudice) to legislate their own brand of hatred. Here’s quote from the resolution: ““Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.” Sadly, this association is made because … it exists. If Islam doesn’t want to be associated with terrorism they should stop blowing people up.


The good news: support for this bill is eroding. Last year it passed 108-51 with 25 abstaining, and this year it had 86-53 with 42 countries abstaining. The tide is turning.




  1. Homosexuals have laws to prevent anti-homosexual “hate speech”, is that not true? Why should hate speech be tolerated for other groups, whether it be minority or majority?

    Shouldn’t we be allowed to speak our minds? When does speech become hate speech?

  2. You are allowed to speak your mind. But religious messages should not be part of MY government. If a religious message is allowed, then a non-religious message should be allowed as well. But when we put up a non-religious message, it gets stolen.

    Ted, if what I’m saying is hate speech, then there are 10,000 Christian blogs that are guilty of hate speech as well. But I don’t go onto their blogs accusing them of hate speech. They have a right to say what they want.

    When someone’s message goes against the millions of people who believe in Jesus, suddenly it’s hate speech?

  3. Jim,

    Not suddenly. Hate speech is hate speech period. I don’t care who is doing it, it is what it is. It shouldn’t be done. If Christians are doing it, I don’t condone it, and I would say neither does God.

    To say that religious messages should not be part of YOUR government is crazy in my opinion. Your government is not yours alone. OUR government represents all of us, religious and non religious.

    OF COURSE non-religious messages should be allowed (they are allowed) without being stolen! Stealing is wrong and it was wrong of someone to steal the atheists signs.

    You and I have already discussed that the signs were rude. They were done specifically next to a nativity to be put in the face of people who are at a most sacred time in their faith walk.

    It is like putting swastikas on the lawn of a Jewish temple, or putting a burning cross on the lawn of an African American’s house.

    It is disrespectful, and in my exaggerated examples, it is criminal and morally wrong in my opinion. There are times and places for your messages. I think it is important to have each others respect as human beings.

    If you don’t respect others, then you make it hard for others to respect you. It’s not about respect in itself, it’s about human feelings and worth.

    You devalue another with hate language, or with putting an antagonizing sign up in front of someone else’s celebration and/or sacred practices.

    Their is so much rudeness and unkind attack going on in the world. Sometimes we think that two wrongs can make a right. We end up starting a Hatfield and McCoy war. We should take the advice of Jesus and turn the other cheek. We should take the advice of Ghandi and MLK and have peace through non violence and earnest love.

  4. Ted typed: “To say that religious messages should not be part of YOUR government is crazy in my opinion. Your government is not yours alone. OUR government represents all of us, religious and non religious.”

    Nice words, Ted. If you believed it, however, you’d be fighting to get “Hail Satan” on our money, the Quran in our courtrooms, the Torah in our government buildings. No, you think YOUR religion should be represented, period. You’d have a cow if any of those things I listed were proposed.

    Tell me I’m wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: