Posted on 04/02/2009 8:16:02 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Last week, the UN Human Rights Council approved a resolution that calls on nation states to limit criticism of religions in general and Islam in particular. Proposed by Pakistan on behalf of other Islamic countries, the resolution passed with the votes of 23 countries on the 47-member council. According to Freedom House, many of the sponsors and supporters of the measure have some of the poorest records of respecting freedom of speech and religion in the world.
Critics of the resolution, mostly from Western countries or liberal activists in Muslim countries, say that the resolution is dangerous because it calls for laws that declare topics off limit for discussion, leading to intolerance of any view that some Muslims may find offensive. Some UN members pointed out that the idea that a given religion has rights against defamation is an idea at odds with freedom. They say that all beliefs must be open to debate, discussion and criticism and that rights against defamation belong solely to individuals.
It is probably no surprise to readers of this blog that the lead up to the passage of this resolution garnered only modest mainstream media notice. But the foreign press and attendant pundits have been all over it. While the Associated Press and Agence France Presse didn’t really do the story justice, I thought Reuters had some good coverage.
Reporter Robert Evans had some helpful reportage and analysis with his story about groups opposed to the resolution:
Some 200 secular, religious and media groups from around the world on Wednesday urged the United Nations Human Rights Council to reject a call from Islamic countries for a global fight against “defamation of religion.”He explains the history of the anti-defamation movement and more about the concerns of groups opposed to the resolution.The groups, including some Muslim bodies, issued their appeal in a statement on the eve of a vote in the Council in Geneva on a resolution proposed by the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
Such a resolution, the statement said, “may be used in certain countries to silence and intimidate human rights activists, religious dissenters and other independent voices,” and to restrict freedom of religion and of speech.
After the resolution passed, Reuters ran another story with context about the Human Rights Council:
The 47-member Human Rights Council has drawn criticism for reflecting mainly the interests of Islamic and African countries, which when voting together can control its agenda… .I wish that we’d hear much more from the Muslim countries that backed the resolution. I also wish there would be more discussion — both from friendly and critical sources — about what’s driving these resolutions and what the Muslim countries hope to accomplish with them. You can get that from blogs and pundits, but it would be nice to see more mainstream discussion.India and Canada also took to the floor of the Geneva-based Council to raise objections to the OIC text. Both said the text looked too narrowly at the discrimination issue.
“It is individuals who have rights, not religions,” Ottawa’s representative told the body. “Canada believes that to extend (the notion of) defamation beyond its proper scope would jeopardise the fundamental right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of expression on religious subjects.”
Critics of the resolution, mostly from Western countries or liberal activists in Muslim countries, say that the resolution is dangerous because it calls for laws that declare topics off limit for discussion, leading to intolerance of any view that some Muslims may find offensive. Some UN members pointed out that the idea that a given religion has rights against defamation is an idea at odds with freedom. They say that all beliefs must be open to debate, discussion and criticism and that rights against defamation belong solely to individuals.
Ever notice how naughty children always look for things that help them justify their bad behavior? Sorry AM, but this article does not apply to you; you only believe in “criticizing” the LDS church, not “beliefs”. Being rude and nasty towards your fellow man has no justification.
LOL, if only that were true.
Oh, the irony....
LOL Wouldn’t you just LOVE to have this resolution passed so no one could possibly question your outlandinsh truth claims? Sheesh!
“...the resolution passed with the votes of 23 countries on the 47-member council”
Passed with a “majority” of less than 50% of the members.
I wonder how many of 23 are not representatives of Muslim countries.
This is a topic that the modern mindset, raised on naturalism and relativism, cannot adequately address.
Criticize or not criticize is not a valid distinction. The proper distinction is criticism that invites productive debate versus criticism that shuts down debate.
A good example of productive criticism is critical examination of sacred texts, historical claims of religions, philosophical outlooks and such. Disruptive to debate criticism, on the other hand, seeks to insult or malign the believer. Examples of that are blasphemy or anti-religious propaganda.
I am all for perceived blasphemy and propaganda to be subject to censorship. I think that some of anti-Islamic fervor that we see around us daily is useless if not outright helpful to the militant islamists. However, I do not think that modern institutions, especially the UN, are capable for drawing the right distinctions. The likely result of the proposed resolution will be delegitimization of all debate about Islam, and that will only benefit the militants of every description.
I am all for perceived blasphemy and propaganda to be subject to censorship.
That's a scary thought.
Why? What good are insults?
Ask Elijah. Ask the 450 Priests of Baal on Mt. Carmel.
At noon Elijah began to taunt them. "Shout louder!" he said. "Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened."So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed.
Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.
- I Kings 18:27-29
perceived blasphemy and propaganda
One mans blasphemy and propaganda are another man’s truth and truth-telling.
I have been accused of both blasphemy and propaganda for telling the LDS the TRUTH about the Jesus Christ of the Bible. A Christ that does not agree with theirs, by their own admission
“There are those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak.” – LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley (LDS Church News, June 20, 1998)
And you think suppression is good thing. Christian ideas and values are going to be the first to be suppressed.
These are examples of irony and a legitimate challenge, not of insults.
Suppression of disruption is a good thing. It encourages productive debate. FR uses such suppression and as a result we have a forum where very disparate beliefs can be discussed honestly and productively. Most forums fail at that, because they work on a free-speech model. The outcome is interreligious pissing contests that don’t enlighten anyone.
Oh, too true! Looks like you hit the last nerve...
"Disruptive to debate criticism, on the other hand, seeks to insult or malign the believer. Examples of that are blasphemy or anti-religious propaganda."I'm fairly certain that the Priests of Baal felt that Elijah's comments were intended to malign and be blasphemous toward their gods, to be personally insulting to them and towards their religion, and were generally anti-religious (of Baal worship) overall.
I'm absolutely certain they felt that way a few hours later, when Elijah ordered the crowd to kill all of them.
"What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world" - FLDS/LDS Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 270
"...all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels." - Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. , The Elders Journal, v. 1, no. 4, p. 60
"Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth." - Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 6, p. 176
"With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world." - Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 199
"Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the ‘whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent." - Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 255
I know an obedient mromon won't think about this rationally though...
"Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the 'prophets, seers, and revelators' of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostacy.... Lucifer... wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to 'do their own thinking.'... "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan — it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy." (Improvement Era, June 1945, p. 354)
....The LDS have a history very similar to Isalm when ti comes to threatening and dealing with those that leave the religion...
Heber C. Kimball, the first counselor to Brigham Young, stated: "... if men turn traitors to God and His servants, their blood will surely be shed, or else they will be damned, and that too according to their covenants" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p.375).
FLDS/LDS Prophet Brigham Young threatened: "I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife and conquer or die. (Great commotion in the congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declaration.) Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put to the line, and righteousness to the plummet. (Voices, generally, 'go it, go it.') If you say it is right, raise your hands. (All hands up.) Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this, and every good work" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p.83)
FLDS/LDS Prophet Brigham Young made this statement in 1846: "I ... warned those who lied and stole and followed Israel that they would have their heads cut off, for that was the law of God and it should be executed" ("Manuscript History of Brigham Young," December 20, 1846, typed copy; original in LDS church archives).
Suppression of disruption is a good thing.
I know many who would (and do) consider ANY criticism “disruption” and would therefore want it suppressed. Who decides?
Annalex, the simple fact that you are NOT a follower of big Mo’ is considered an insult by orthodox Muslims. Your mere existence as a Catholic is an affront. The presence of links on your ABOUT page that link to information that contradicts the “truths” of Islam are in fact a grievous insult.
Perhaps, but Elijah based his jokes on the evidence. That is still not insults but reasoned discourse, even though the outcomes were momentous.
I agree that the feelings of the side whose beliefs are attacked are not sufficient to call for censrorship. The nature of the attack must be objectively looked into. At FR, for example, we have moderators selected based on their objectivity and skill.
I debated stuff with Muslims quite a bit on another forum, now defunct, and they did not appear insulted in the least.
Define "nature of the attack" and "objectively looked into", specifically the religious (or non-religious) qualifications used to judge "good versus bad nature" and to approve/sanction the "looker".
Gee. Why do Mormons get on these threads about Muslims & the right to critique others and hijack them so that now we're talking about Mormons? (And some antis --anti-Christians, that is -- can't help but come along & bash other faith-based posters)
It works at FR, more often than not. Our Religion Moderator developed quite a set of rules, and as a result we rarely see interminable mudslinging on Religion Forum.
For example, if Freeper Elijah said to Freeper Baal’s Priest “Your god is a piece of wood, and you are an idiot”, that post would likely be suppressed at FR. However, if he said “Let’s see whose prayers are answered” and then laughed at Baal Priest’s failure, that would be legitimate albeit bruising debate.
Good question.
Perhaps, but consider the global aspect of the un decision and compare to the multiple stories of Christians (and other faiths) killed or imprisioned for the slightest infraction (either real or perceived) against Mohammad. So you could interact online - all well and good. We are looking at a much larger picture now.
Voice of the Martyrs works with many of these people and their surviving families.
WWW.PERSECUTION.COM
Now, how does an oversize McCain thing help the discussion?
And what does the oppressive nature of most Muslim regimes have to do with the topic of reasonable censorship?
Let me hazard a guess and state that the “orthodox” Muslims who would be willing to debate Christians in a neutral forum are probably not closely tied to the “militant islamists [sic]” that seemed to worry you in your original post.
Also, please forgive me for belaboring the obvious by pointing out that folks who post on internet forums often don’t “show all of their cards,” especially when it comes to matters of religious belief.
However, let’s cut to the chase: I found Dan Brown’s _The Da Vinci Code_ to be a poorly-written piece of anti-Catholic propaganda that has no artistic merit. I have good reasons for my finding. Should the book be banned?
You are right that the Muslims I talked to were not exactly brandishing their Kalashnikovs, but then we are talkign about censorship, not battlefield. I am simply pointing out that reasonable people exist, who would reasonably be offended by propagandistic pap, but would debate if they feel like they are taken seriously.
Yes, I think Da Vinci Code could be banned, because it is slander. If it were marked as a work of fiction, despite lack of artitic merit, and despite propagandistic intent, then perhaps not.
In my first post, I made it clear that modern mind cannot tell the difference between reasonable and unreasonable censorship. I agree that the Islamists simply follow their agenda.
Our Christian civilization, however, was build on the concept of reasoned debate. Censorship of disruptive material is a part of it. We should drop the knee-jerk reaction to censorship. America, after all, had various forms of censorship till as recent as 50 years ago.
Regarding posting graphics, it is a good idea to find out what the width of the image is by right-clicking on it and selecting “properties” from the pop-up menu. Anything wider than 600 pixels is probably too wide.
If the image is too wide to post as is, use ‘width=600’ attribute in the ‘img’ tag.
That wasn’t the problem, the image was hijacked to the other image.
OK.
>>> I am simply pointing out that reasonable people exist, who would reasonably be offended by propagandistic pap, but would debate if they feel like they are taken seriously. <<<
I agree with you that reasonable people exist. I am simply pointing out that no one is worrying about offending them. This is because reasonable people can take offense without rioting or beheading nuns and journalists.
Thus, I would argue that censorship of blasphemous and irreligious materials is irrelevant to the prevention of violence and social disorder. This is because reasonable believers may be offended but express their feelings in an orderly and reasonable way: they write books, magazine articles etc. to express their contempt for the blasphemy. Unreasonable believers will be disorderly and violent regardless of whether or not some book or cartoon is banned: the mere existence of a non-believer is a sufficient call to action.
The whole basis of your argument seems to be an unacknowledged reliance on an European Enlightenment notion of tolerance that the militant Islamists would see as being not just unconvincing but part of the Great Satan they are fighting against.
>>> Yes, I think Da Vinci Code could be banned, because it is slander. If it were marked as a work of fiction, despite lack of artitic merit, and despite propagandistic intent, then perhaps not. <<<
I didn’t ask if it could be banned. Given that both you and I perceive that it is anti-religious propaganda, by the criteria you set forth in your first post it SHOULD be banned by the UN.
The “fictionality” of the _Code_ is a red herring; otherwise, it would be impossible to understand the response to the Danish cartoons in the UN and in Muslim countries. Fiction can be anti-religious, too; De Sade and Voltaire, for example, were very good at this king of blasphemy.
Please answer the question.
Typically, they just leave the venue. No one wants to argue with yahoos. Hence the need to censor the yahoo behavior, on both sides.
The basis of my argument is simply Catholic tradition. St. Francis argued with the Sultan. The Sultan did not cut his head off. However, I am sure St. Francis constructed his arguments in a calm and peaceful way.
Please answer the question.
Which? I cannot answer specifically if Da Vinci Code SHOULD be banned. The answer would depend on the specific legislation governing publication of books, and I did not propose such. I merely said that there is nothing wrong in having a censorship system in place. If Da Vinci Code happens to fall under a given system of censorship, it would be fine with me. If, however, a non-Christian work of fiction utilized some Christian imagery, perhaps not.
I think, those Danish cartoons were inappropriate, and the newspaper should not have run them, and if Denmakr enacted legislation not permitting them, that would be wise. If I were Muslim, I'd be offended. How would you like to see Jesus with a Cruise missile? When Wilders makes a film where he argues concrete provable things about the Sharia law or Muslim culture, that is different: it is legitimate argument (hopefully so -- I have not seen the film).
I mean, without blasphemy or sacrilege.
>>> Typically, they just leave the venue. <<<
Agreed. And without voicing death-threats or promising other forms of retribution.
>>> No one wants to argue with yahoos. Hence the need to censor the yahoo behavior, on both sides. <<<
What you write here makes no sense. How would “censoring both sides” work in the case of the Danish cartoons? Or how could Theo van Gough’s murderer be censored?
Also, it is plain from the news on the UN resolution that the sponsor countries are not trying to arbitrate discussions on internet forums or newspaper letter columns. They are trying to limit speech by missionaries and political and religious dissenters in their countries. They are trying to ensure that no dialogue takes place. In fact, this is something that you point out in your first post.
You are arguing here as if both sides of a dialogue are to be silenced through this censorship, or that naughty participants would be excluded, when it seems clear from the news on the UN resolution that the censorship would work to prevent most religious dialogues from occurring in the first place. It seems to allow for prior restraint, for example.
>>> The basis of my argument is simply Catholic tradition. St. Francis argued with the Sultan. The Sultan did not cut his head off. However, I am sure St. Francis constructed his arguments in a calm and peaceful way. <<<
I am somewhat familiar with Catholic traditions. Can you point me to the one that allows for censorship on the basis of PERCEIVED blasphemy that applies to NON-Catholics?
>>> I cannot answer specifically if Da Vinci Code SHOULD be banned. The answer would depend on the specific legislation governing publication of books, and I did not propose such. I merely said that there is nothing wrong in having a censorship system in place. If Da Vinci Code happens to fall under a given system of censorship, it would be fine with me. <<<
Well, you wrote in your first post that: “I am all for perceived blasphemy and propaganda to be subject to censorship.” That seems pretty general and “carte blanche.” Also “perceived” blasphemy appears to be a wholly subjective criterion.
What I don’t understand is how you can argue for some unspecified censorship regime “in principle” and yet also recognise that “modern institutions, especially the UN, are [not] capable for drawing the right distinctions” and that “the likely result of the proposed resolution will be delegitimization of all debate about Islam, and that will only benefit the militants of every description.” Why the apparent contradictions?
You seem to be talking “around” the censorhip regime you would like to see. Apparently, you would both like and not like the censorship under the UN resolution. You say that “there is nothing wrong in having a censorship system in place” and yet you pointed out serious problems with the proposed UN system.
As for _The Da Vinci Code_, perhaps I asked a question at the wrong level of generality. So, tell me: what would a suitable world-wide censorship regime look like? How would it avoid the pitfalls of the UN and other “modern institutions.”
Well; Joseph Smith managed to 'criticize' (HA!) ALL churches and merely alluded to what was wrong with their 'beliefs'.
Everything that is NOT seen as being POSITIVE towards MORMONism is PERCEIVED to be hateful, bigoted and no doubt BLASPHEMOUS by Headquarters in SLC and it's little minions on FR.
We'll have to ask an expert...
Ya THINK???
Galatians 5:12
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
We DO??
Just WHERE is the job description posted?
Where are the requirements for employment to be read?
Your Temple Rites® are non-Scriptural (can't even be found in MORMON 'scripture') and the two PERSONAGES were Demons.
IF?
Where you been?
Yeah, ask Osage Orange and Sky Pilot.
And no, I’m not pinging either of them.
This will not stop the original sized picture from loading into your computer: just takes a little longer to re-size to fit on your scrren.
I remember a few years ago when narrowband was the main pipeline to home computer. THEN a smaller image (at the source) was a GOOD thing.
The ALT tag is used mostly today for text that appears when your cursor is over the image, but it can also be used to post a small image of while the final image fully loads.
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.
