Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dogfight over religious dogma
Edmonton Sun ^ | Mindelle Jacob

Posted on 03/17/2009 8:41:23 AM PDT by Clive

The tinpot dictators who dominate the so-called UN Human Rights Council are at it again -- squawking about "defamation of religion" in a seedy attempt to undermine freedom of expression.

If this band of political bandits has its way, criticism of religious dogma would be virtually banned as an affront to human dignity.

Curiously, only Islam is specifically mentioned in the draft resolution, released by UN Watch last week. Could this have anything to do with the fact that there are so many Muslim countries on the Human Rights Council?

Want a laugh? The resolution includes the usual remarks about promoting respect for all religions, the need to combat racism and the right to freedom of expression. But some of the countries on the Human Rights Council are among the world's masters of repression.

Another irony? The resolution condemns "religious hatred ... against Islam and Muslims in particular." Yet the worst Islamophobia is practised by radical Muslims against other Muslims.

Take the case of the journalism student in Afghanistan who was sentenced to 20 years in jail for blasphemy -- for questioning why women don't have equal rights in Muslim countries.

What happened to this young man, who dared to start a debate about the practice of Islam, is the logical, horrifying outcome of outlawing blasphemy. And the Human Rights Council wants to put its stamp of approval on such behaviour.

No one is hauled into court for blasphemy in western countries anymore. But reform-minded Muslims have long been persecuted, imprisoned or killed by their fundamentalist co-religionists for speaking out too freely about Islam.

Several years ago, the Middle East Media Research Institute compiled a lengthy list of instances of persecution in the name of Islam dating back to 1925.

Among the cases:

* Writer Farag Foda was shot to death in Cairo in 1992 for being an "apostate."

* Numerous writers, journalists, academics and artists were murdered in Algeria in 1993.

* Also in 1993, a fatwa was issued against Bangladeshi author and doctor Taslima Nasreen for blasphemy. She was forced to flee the country.

* In 1994, Naguib Mahfouz, who won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1988, was stabbed in the throat in Cairo.

Last year, Paris-based Algerian writer Mohamed Sifaoui, who infiltrated an al-Qaida cell in France, was attacked by Islamic extremists.

And Irshad Manji, who fearlessly promotes the reform of Islam, continues to receive death threats. She noted on her blog recently that she got an e-mail from a Muslim convert who fantasizes about beheading her.

While the western world lauds its intellects and encourages critical thinking, Muslim countries often throw their brightest lights in jail -- or worse.

The fiercest critics of extremist Islam are Muslims themselves. God bless them.

The zealots running the UN Human Rights Council want to crush freedom of expression in the West as well, under the guise of protecting religion.

"The very Muslim states screaming about human rights abuses are the abusers themselves," observes Anne Bayefsky, a York University professor and editor of Eye on the UN.

The resolution is just an attempt to stifle criticism of extremism, she says. "It has to do with the antithesis of freedom," she adds. "It's a human rights fraud from beginning to end."

Par for the course for the UN.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; doublestandard; humanrights; islamicimperialism; islamiclaw; islamicsupremacists; religiousintolerance; unfailures; unscandals; usoutofun; zealots

1 posted on 03/17/2009 8:41:23 AM PDT by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Clive
"The very Muslim states screaming about human rights abuses are the abusers themselves,"

And exact parallel to the left in our country.

Hmmm... what do they have in common... could it be who they're working for?

2 posted on 03/17/2009 8:43:03 AM PDT by MrB (The 0bamanation: Marxism, Infanticide, Appeasement, Depression, Thuggery, and Censorship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exg; Alberta's Child; albertabound; AntiKev; backhoe; Byron_the_Aussie; Cannoneer No. 4; ...

-


3 posted on 03/17/2009 8:43:23 AM PDT by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
Saudi Arabia had a standing official policy within the last 10 years to deny Jews entry into the country. They have segregated "muslim only" cities (with a death penalty for any non-muslim who enters). They prohibit the exercise of any other faith.

All of these would be considered "triggers" for even the most MODERATE muslim to wage physical jihad holy war against a nation if it was done to followers of Islam.

I don't believe that the UN will ever go after the ACLU, Christopher Hitchens (who appears to be more critical of Christianity than of Isalm although in total he is rabidly anti-thesist, regardless of which god(s) you believe in), Bill Maher, et al.

Nope, this is strictly the adoption of Islamic laws against blasphemy (criticism or mockery of Islam).

There will continue to be Palestinian programs that tell children that Jews are the offspring of pigs and monkeys. There will still be Saudi school texts shipped around the world that make equally hateful attacks on those of non-Islamic faiths.

4 posted on 03/17/2009 8:48:35 AM PDT by a fool in paradise ("I certainly hope he (Bush) doesn’t succeed" - Democratic strategist James Carville 9-11-2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
And exact parallel to the left in our country.

Hmmm... what do they have in common... could it be who they're working for?

They are working together against freedom anywhere on the basis of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." However, since both seek world hegemony something must give sooner or later.

One would have to nuke the other and we are the strongest nuclear power. Therefore, taking us over is paramount to each but the Communists are in far the better position, nuke wise, and they are much closer to achieving their goal.

That is why freedom loving Americans must realize our peril and stop being so blase about politics. Of course us Freepers are not generally blase or we wouldn't be here.

5 posted on 03/17/2009 8:58:28 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Clive

Does this mean that Germany must repeal its law designating The Church of Scientology as a criminal organization?


6 posted on 03/17/2009 8:59:00 AM PDT by Ozone34 ("There are only two philosophies: Thomism and bullshitism!" -Leon Bloy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive

These supposed journalists have no idea what a dogma is.


7 posted on 03/17/2009 9:05:03 AM PDT by Salvation ( †With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive

DOGMA

Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation. All dogmas, therefore, are formally revealed truths and promulgated as such by the Church. they are revealed either in Scripture or tradition, either explicitly (as the Incarnation) or implicitly (as the Assumption). Moreover, their acceptance by the faithful must be proposed as necessary for salvation. they may be taught by the Church in a solemn manner, as with the definition of the Immaculate Conception, or in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching on the malice of taking innocent human life. (Etym. Latin dogma; from Greek dogma, declaration, decree.)

All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.

8 posted on 03/17/2009 9:08:20 AM PDT by Salvation ( †With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive

DOGMATIC FACT

A truth that, though not revealed by God, nevertheless comes under the infallible teaching authority of the Church. The reason for the Church's competence over dogmatic facts is their close connection with revealed truths. If the Church did not have authority to teach such facts infallibly, the doctrines of revelation would be jeopardized. Examples of dogmatic facts are the valid election of a pope, the validity of an ecumenical council, and the actuality of a canonized saint's presence in heaven.

All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission. 


9 posted on 03/17/2009 9:09:14 AM PDT by Salvation ( †With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson