quote:

---

GENEVA: The top U.N. rights body on Thursday passed a resolution proposed by Islamic countries saying it is deeply concerned about the defamation of religions and urging governments to prohibit it.

The European Union said the text was one-sided because it primarily focused on Islam.

The U.N. Human Rights Council, which is dominated by Arab and other Muslim countries, adopted the resolution on a 21-10 vote over the opposition of Europe and Canada.

EU countries, including France, Germany and Britain, voted against. Previously EU diplomats had said they wanted to stop the growing worldwide trend of using religious anti-defamation laws to limit free speech.

The document, which was put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."

---

quote:

---

Previously EU diplomats had said they wanted to stop the growing worldwide trend of using religious anti-defamation laws to limit free speech.

---

This just in: EU breaks glass walls in stone throwing project.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
So the UN wants the Canadian government to criminalize unionist's posts?

---

I guess (hope) you're kidding, but I have consistently opposed and condemned Islamophobia of all kinds on this board. I certainly was among the first to condemn any vacillation on the issue of Afghanistan, for example, and I condemned the NDP until the very moment in September 2006 when they finally woke up (5 years later) and sort of called for troop withdrawal. I was among the first to bring to babblers' attention (in 2006) the racist hysteria against Muslims (and others) in Québec being stirred up by Dumont and the MSM, including the whole frenzy over VWV (voting while veiled). I have consistently condemned those phony progressives who hide behind "pro-woman and anti-Taliban" pretences to justify imperialist marauding in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

And that will never stop.

But if anyone, including the "United Nations" (oxymoron), thinks that I am going to start being respectful to Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Allah, Yahweh, Mary, and the Holy Phantom, they had better settle in for a long f***ing struggle.

ETA: By the way, there is no "connection" between Islam and "terrorism, violence and human rights violations", so that reported part of the resolution is absolutely accurate. One thing I find extremely disturbing about some of the crop of "new atheists" (especially Sam Harris) is the very convenient linkage of Islam with terrorism post-9/11. Any such attempts are vile and are in the service of Bush-Brown-Harper and their ilk.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

It lumps together the "defamation of religions" with intolerance and discrimination; the equating of "any" religion with terrorism; ethnic and religious profiling; physical attacks on places of worship, etc. It touts "respect of religions and their protection from contempt," and such restrictions on the right of freedom of expression as may be necessary "for the respect of the rights or reputations of others."

quote:

---

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (21):Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa and Sri Lanka.

Against (10):Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

Abstentions (14):Bolivia, Brazil, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Japan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Peru, Republic of Korea, Uruguay and Zambia.

BILAL HAYEE (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) members of the Council and introducing the draft resolution, said that this was an annual initiative by the OIC, and it was built on previous resolutions. The resolution highlighted the impact of religious stereotyping on the enjoyment on human rights. It noted that the defamation of religion caused social disruption. It also deplored attacks on places of religious worship. The OIC expected that the international community would address the devastating consequences of this phenomenon.

ABDULWAHAB ABDULSALAM ATTAR (Saudi Arabia) said last year had witnessed a series of immoral practices targeting beliefs and cultures. Islam happened to be a common target, at a time when the international community had made great strides and achievements in the area of human rights. It was regrettable that there were false interpretations of freedom of religion and expression. This must not lead to any hatred by touching on sacred teachings. There were teachings which had called for tolerance and acceptance. International instruments had guaranteed the right to expression, but had also placed obligations on everybody to exercise this right. This did not mean to ignore any prejudices against Muslims, as seen in the Western media. Saudi Arabia called for tolerance of all religions and called on the international community to respect Muslims and their feelings in accordance with all monotheistic religions. The draft resolution recalled the preservation of this respect. It was hoped that the Human Rights Council would adopt the draft resolution by consensus.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, called for a vote, said that the European Union was convinced that continuing dialogue would help alleviate current tensions on the issue of religious defamation. There existed substantial challenges on this issue and it hoped that all States would engage in practices of tolerance and acceptance. The concept of defamation of religion was not consistent with human rights discourse. The focus of the concept of defamation could be used by Governments to deny other peoples freedoms. This draft resolution was one sided and focused on Islam referring exclusively to Islam in several paragraphs. While it appreciated the amendments made by the Pakistan, it did not significantly, or sufficiently, alter the nature of the resolution. It was for these reasons that the European Union would call for a vote on this resolution and vote against it.

MUNU MAHAWAR (India) said that India firmly opposed the stereotyping of religions. However, the draft resolution inappropriately addressed the issue from a narrow perspective. The resolution excessively focused on only one religion. Stereotyping was not linked to only one religion. India would thus abstain from the vote. - Source

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
It lumps together the "defamation of religions" with intolerance and discrimination...

---

Personally I think that's a pretty big problem. The objection that this falls on the wrong side of the free speech line is a fair one.

The wording is pretty careful, deliberately leaving some subjectiveness its application, but statements like this are worrisome:

quote:

---

10. Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

---

And of course this is complete bullshit:

quote:

---

Recognizing the valuable contribution of all religions to modern civilization and the contribution that dialogue among civilizations can make to an improved awareness and understanding of the common values shared by all humankind,

---

There is a long history of the West desecrating peoples spirituality, teachings and ceremonies. It is a classic technique of colonialism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:

As troubled as I am that there is widespread support among UN member states for the notion that"defaming" a religion should entail negative legal consequences, we need to recognize the deep sense of grievance felt by many in Islamic and other non-Western countries by provocations such as Geert Wilders' distortion of Islam and the Koran in his recent film.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
I would guess that people who oppose this thing are people who have grown up in societies that call themselves secular and mystify the relationship between religion (as a hegemonic institution) and the oppression of the state.

---

Not really. If you want to call it religion or spirituality or whatever, it just amounts to a set of superstitious ideas. It should be tolerated, though not encouraged, by governments and rational-minded people.

Like drug use.

You are free to think black cats are unlucky, or there is an invisible man in the sky who sets you on fire forever if you have too much sex, and you can even be offended, if you want, when I tell you that those ideas are ridiculous. But there's something seriously wrong when governments and/or the UN start telling us we should shut up about the absurdity of these notions that were invented by the ancient world's equivalent of snake-oil salesmen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
So the UN wants the Canadian government to criminalize unionist's posts?

---

No. What it is, is a call to end the unusual and extraordinary defamation of Islam and Muslim people that is presently sweeping the west, phrased secularly, so as not to be prejudicial to any one religion. If it were only the case that all slander and defemation of religion, and rejection of it, were couched in similar secular terms, then this would not be an issue. What is the issue, is that unlike Unionist, the great majority of slander against religion these days, especially in the west targets Islam and Muslim people specifically. I can't see how one would approach this problem in the UN, without phrasing it in general secular terms according the same rights to all religions without being prejudicial to any one.

What if they had called for an end to the defamation of Islam in specific? You could not do that without the motion being specifically prejudiced in itself. Hence, defemation of any religion. It is a call very much like the one that ended the "thirty years war" for an end to intra-religious slander and strife. Simply reading the article would tell you as much:

quote:

---

The document, which was put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."

---

But yeah. Go ahead! Turn the motion into issue of your personal right to freedom of speech. It drole. I guess if its so easy to ignore the text of the articles you have just been reading, and the content of the story and the motion, and also the issue it addresses, it is not at all suprising that you also missed the mass slaughter that is being carried out world-wide in front of the backdrop of our western superiority complex and the steady stream of anti-Islamic propganda, specifically singling out Islam for special approbation.

Would you react in such a cavalier fashion to a similar motion made by Jews in 1938 in the league of nations, knowing what you do today about what happens when uncensured prejudice is the stuff of common discourse, from the street to the halls of power and in the established media?

Several well recieved pundits have called for a nuclear strike on Mecca for example, or did you miss that too? I should ask why is it that you are so interested in freedom of speech, when you don't seem at all interested in what is being said?

Turn off your computer and go back to sleep.

[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

In favour (21):Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa and Sri Lanka.

---

That list of countries are really the authorities on human rights. Christians in Saudi Arabia, Falun Gong in China, etc, etc, have never faced defamation of their religion. I will believe this motion when the countries favouring it begin recognizing human rights in their own countries.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
Funny how no one replied to sanizadeh's comment about how this type of thing only further hurts repressed securalists trying to cause change in some of the worst human rights-abusing nations.

---

I actually meant to respond to that - and wholeheartedly agree - but got busy with something else.

Perhaps the next "human rights" resolution will ban defamation of conservatism? Capitalism?

It is quite interesting that various theocracies and religious organizations are profiting from imperialism's assault against Iraq and Afghanistan to try to immunize their own backward regimes and ideologies from criticism.

This is the situation which has been created by the U.S. and NATO - that criticism of religion is presented as being on a par with racism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I actually meant to respond to that - and wholeheartedly agree - but got busy with something else.

Perhaps the next "human rights" resolution will ban defamation of conservatism? Capitalism?

It is quite interesting that various theocracies and religious organizations are profiting from imperialism's assault against Iraq and Afghanistan to try to immunize their own backward regimes and ideologies from criticism.

This is the situation which has been created by the U.S. and NATO - that criticism of religion is presented as being on a par with racism.

---

Exactly the case. And we are fed the myth that all this money and lives being spent on war are somehow reducing religious theocracy. Dancing on TV was just banned in Afghanistan. A small example of how expensive, futile and dangerous it is to try and "democratize" other countries. The poppy industry is another great example.

Anyways - perhaps we need a thread of why horrible human rights abusers are allowed to dominate a so-called human rights council at all? This institution is nothing more than joke with a faulty name. Let us ask Saudi Arabia to pass judgment on human rights

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
You're the one selectively reading the text, Cueball. If it was strictly a call to stop hatred of and violence Muslims -- and frankly, I'd be fine if it was just this, even if it didn't refer to other religions -- then there are a lot of words that wouldn't be there.

---

Firstly: Your not thinking. The background text (context) is an explicit exposition on the arguement for the resolution. The resolutions themselves are never argued points, but clear principles. Putting into motion a specific injunction protecting Muslim people in particular would prejudicial and completely out of line with the tradition of the UN.

Go read them. They have resolutions against "war children" not "black war children", even though the particular problem being addressed originally was mostly black war children, though it is applicable generally.

Secondly: what is so special about this particular injunction, what is it you don't like? It's Muslimness? Because that is the way it sounds, because almost each and every one of the countries that is being addressed in this resolution, already limits freedom of speech, by invoking legislation of one kind or another against defemation of religions, and their sdherents.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I actually meant to respond to that - and wholeheartedly agree - but got busy with something else.

Perhaps the next "human rights" resolution will ban defamation of conservatism? Capitalism?

It is quite interesting that various theocracies and religious organizations are profiting from imperialism's assault against Iraq and Afghanistan to try to immunize their own backward regimes and ideologies from criticism.

This is the situation which has been created by the U.S. and NATO - that criticism of religion is presented as being on a par with racism.

Islamophobia must be combatted and condemned. Any effort to connect one or another religion with terrorism must be condemned. But to legislate "respect" for theories concocted by humans is foul and vicious.

---

Your the one who stands full square behind the anti-hate speech laws in this country. I do not. Finding myself on the other side of this arguement with you is very strange indeed. Or do you retract your previous support for hate speech laws, that 9 times out of 10, as far as I can tell are used in cases involving defemation of Judaism, and Jews.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:

Anyways - perhaps we need a thread of why horrible human rights abusers are allowed to dominate a so-called human rights council at all? This institution is nothing more than joke with a faulty name. Let us ask Saudi Arabia to pass judgment on human rights

---

This is absolutely bizzarre as well. What is the source of your particular problem with hypocritical Muslim human rights abusers? How could the human rights council not be chock full of human rights abusers. Who is supposed to be on this committee anyway?

Colombia? USA? Argentina? Russia? China? To have it your way the council would be made up of Scandinavian countries onlym with Andora on constant rotation. I notice this particular concern about the quality of the membership of the committee only seems to comes up when its a discussion of Muslim people, and their human rights abuses.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Secondly: what is so special about this particular injunction, what is it you don't like? It's Muslimness? Because that is the way it sounds, because almost each and every one of the countries that is being addressed in this resolution, already limits freedom of speech, by invoking legislation of one kind or another against defemation of religions, and their sdherents.

Is this news to you?

---

quote:

---

Posted by sandizeh:I hope the progressive people would be more concerned about the sense of grievance felt by Islamic reformists in Muslim countries as a result of criminalization of "defamation of religion". Many reformists who speak against extremism of fundamentalism, or attempt to reform the religious thought to become more modern and flexible, are already under threat of jail or execution in their countries. The last they would need is a UN statement that may be interpreted as seal of approval for this kind of repression.

---

You're quite right. I agree. We should speak out against these kinds of atrocities, and I oppose the HRC resolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

This is absolutely bizzarre as well. What is the source of your particular problem with hypocritical Muslim human rights abusers? How could the human rights council not be chock full of human rights abusers. Who is supposed to be on this committee anyway?

Colombia? USA? Argentina? Russia? China? To have it your way the council would be made up of Scandinavian countries onlym with Andora on constant rotation. I notice this particular concern about the quality of the membership of the committee only seems to comes up when its a discussion of Muslim people, and their human rights abuses.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

I have always been concerned with the membership - whether the discussion is Cuba, Isreal, China or Muslim nations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:

You're quite right. I agree. We should speak out against these kinds of atrocities, and I oppose the HRC resolution.

Because I don't think hateful propaganda like Geert Wilders' Fitna film should be banned, I have the obligation to speak out against it. It's hardly a coincidence that the HRC resolution was passed a day after the release of Wilders' film.

---

That is fine. As long as this means that a double standard is not being applied. But this is not the case the Finta film get cleared for "export" by the Netherlands, and a similar film about Judaism would get canned right away, you can bet on it.

It's called slander. So, personally I agree with you. But just look at the difference here.

In Canada there is a wingnut behind bars in Alberta who ran a website called the "Federation of Free Planets" web site, and it contained some of the usual scurilous material about Jews. This guy was seriously a nut job, UFO guy, with abosutely zero credibility, and his site only something even the most vile skin head would log onto for a laugh.

But there you go. He is in jail. While people can seriously state that Islam is a source of evil and particularly backward, and a threat to "our way of life" in the mainstream press and recomend that we "nuke Mecca" and no one lifts a finger.

quote:

---

Funny how no one replied to sanizadeh's comment about how this type of thing only further hurts repressed securalists trying to cause change in some of the worst human rights-abusing nations. Ghislaine

---

Referring to a religon has never been a sine quoi non for trying to cause change in human rights-abusing nations.

For example: Depriving women of their right to drive a car in Saudi Arabia is a disciminatory and oppressive practice based on gender. That the Saudis justify such practice on the basis of Koran, Kama Sutra or Mao's red book, is totally irrelevant for well intentioned human rights advocates and supporters.

But for people who have an ax to grind against religion per se, of course religion must be the focus.

The key word in the quotation above, is "secular". What is the relevance of one's secularity or religiosity to promoting human rights? None. The word secular is there for a reason: It is the emblem behind which one marches, not to defend human righs but to combat religions.

I have never heard that to promote human rights one needs to show a 'secularist' badge. Is there an exclusively secularist approach to human rights or I am missing something?

Could you Ghislaine or sanizadeh enlighten us as to the releavnce of being or not a secularist?

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: sangie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Your the one who stands full square behind the anti-hate speech laws in this country. I do not. Finding myself on the other side of this arguement with you is very strange indeed. Or do you retract your previous support for hate speech laws, that 9 times out of 10, as far as I can tell are used in cases involving defemation of Judaism, and Jews.

---

You must be confusing me with someone else. Or, you must be just plain confused. By the way, your attempt to smear me as interested in defending only "Jews" is noted, although it has become unfortunately typical of your methodology.

How many dozen references would you like to my demand that Section 13 of the CHRA be repealed (here's one of the threads I started to campaign for getting rid of this draconian law)?

How thick a blindfold is needed to ignore my real views, posted here endlessly on the subject, of hate speech even against Jews. Example:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -=+=-:
Was David Ahenakew, the native leader, rightly for charged with hate crimes for saying:

Originally posted by unionist:

... Either the charges against him were entirely without foundation - or if not, then they disclose a fatal flaw in the legislation. I'm glad the courts have reversed gears here and hopefully a different result will ensue.

I say that as the child of Jewish genocide survivors. His comments are hurtful and disgusting, but we don't need laws to prohibit them. The overwhelming majority of humanity has learned to reject such opinions.

---

Regardless Section 13 exists, and it is applied, and one of the kinds of descrimination defined by the act is religion. But you do support Hate crimes legislation of the kind used to prosecute Ernst Zundel, yes or no?

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
But you do support Hate crimes legislation of the kind used to prosecute Ernst Zundel, yes or no?

---

I oppose any legislation that criminalizes denial of the Holocaust.

I oppose legislation that bans speech which "is likely to expose to contempt or hatred" people based on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

I support legislation which criminalizes advocacy of violence or genocide against a group based on a prohibited ground of discrimination - but it actually has to advocate in the sense of being likely to give rise to violence.

If you have a very particular clause you want my opinion on, I'll do my best - but sometimes it's not that clear.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

Defamation at the very least involves saying something that is untrue. Are all untrue statements about religion defamatory? If the truth of a statement is debatable, can it still be defamatory?

Is there a difference between misrepresenting the doctrine of a particular religion and contradicting that doctrine? Does "defamation of religion" simply mean blasphemy? Does ridicule amount to defamation? What about satire? What about works of "art"?

Is it possible to defame a religion without defaming all those who adhere to it?

Consider different cases:

A. "Roman Catholics don't believe in the Holy Trinity" is clearly an untrue statement. Is it defamatory?

B. "The concept of the Holy Trinity is absurd. Jesus was a prophet, but was not God himself in human form." To a Catholic, this may be heresy or blasphemy, but is it defamatory of the Roman Catholic religion? Does it defame the adherents of Roman Catholicism?

C. "Islam is a set of medieval beliefs largely unsuited to the 21st century." Is that untrue? Is it defamatory? If so, does it defame the religion itself or anybody who adheres to the religion? Is defamation the same thing as offending someone?

D. "Protestant fundamentalists have fascistic tendencies." That may be defamatory of certain persons, but is it "defamation of religion"?

E. "If God wanted people to believe in him, why'd he invent logic then?" Defamatory?

F. "Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe." Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal." ?

G. "God helps those who help themselves - because God is a lazy bastard." Harmless humour, or blasphemy and defamation?

That is defamtion, particularly when such is linked directly to cultural anthropological arguments indicting the relgious ethnographic background of "middle eastern men" as the cause of this particular mysogyny.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
the large majority of religions are misogynist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sangie:
Is that a Yes or a No?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
But don't you dare say some are more misogynist than others, or Cueball will get offended.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I don't believe some are more misogynist than others. I believe that others are more misogynist than some.

---

quote:

---

It's a truthful answer - I know, I know, the Spanish Inquisition didn't want the truth, they only wanted "yes" or "no" before warming up the stake, but I stopped beating my partner long ago. unionist

---

Prevarication ! What can we do without you! I wish I could build you a monument in the lawn of each legislature from which rivers are flowing with truth, honesty, transparency.

In unionist's "logic for dummies" book, a fact ceases to be a fact if it originates from a person you disagree with. A question that requires a simple Yes or No ceases to be a legitimate question because it was used in the Inquisition.

I hear Hitler was vegetarian. Oh shit ! What with all the hordes of vegetarians across Canada and the world! They must agree with Hitler.

Now about you "stopped beating your partner", I do not give a shit whether you stopped beating him/her or handed him/her the stick to put in your behind?

And who gives a shit whether God is Great or pathetic like you ?

Your attitude (not beliefs) stink as the manner you debate shows. I do not know why but I guess you must have been really outsmarted and humiliated by a religious or pseudo-religious person to the point of traumatizing you and leaving you with this huge chip. Get over it !

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: sangie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:
Because I don't think hateful propaganda like Geert Wilders' Fitna film should be banned, I have the obligation to speak out against it. It's hardly a coincidence that the HRC resolution was passed a day after the release of Wilders' film.

---

Excellent point. In fact, as we reflect on these events, let's have a look at how various reactionary forces nourish and feed each other:

1. The Geert Wilders and similar frenzied ultra-right Islamophobes, who present Islam as being the greatest threat to "our" civilization.

2. The self-styled Muslims who react to the Islamophobes by stirring up people's passions, organizing riots, issuing fatwas, using Section 13 to try to shut down freedom of expression in Canada - and, now, trying to ban "defamation" of religion on the international plane.

3. And finally, the real villains in the peace - the real threat to all our civilizations and values - the U.S.-U.K.-Canada-Australia-NATO etc. coalition. They have NO PROBLEM AT ALL with Islam or any other religion. They install and prop up some of the most vile religious fanatical regimes of all faiths. But boy does it ever suit their aggressive purposes to have people ranting and raving against "radical Islam", thus providing them with justification for their invasions and military adventures.

quote:

---

I was traumatized when you quoted Nazis - in your very first thread - in support of your attack on human rights legislation in Canada. I'm over it now, thanks. Now I'm merely curious as to what you're doing in polite company. unionist

---

I attack human rights commisions not human rights legislation. Because the commissions are willing tools for restraining equality in Canada.

You are either ignorant of the difference -yet masquerading as human rights advocate- or just plain dishonest in stating that I attcked human rights legislation.

And next time you are about to slip these bread slices in a toaster or do anything in your daily life, have your eyes as well as your encyclopedia and history and science books all open to make sure everything you are using is kosher -no pun intended- i.e., has not been been discovered by a Nazi.

To answer your question about polite company, I am allergic to it, so I just sit, rosary in hand and recite

"religion is shit" repeated 33 times

"a fact ceases to be a fact when submitted by a source that I don't like" repeated 33 times

"prevaricate when a Yes or No answer to a question will expose me" repeated 33 times.

And I start all over again...

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: sangie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Okay, so calling a religion "misogynist" is one example of "defamation of religion".

Got any more?

---

Lots. But that is not what was said. What was said was that Islam was particularly misogynist and that Arab men are not as capable of "love" as you are. Feels good, I suppose, being inately superior.

Racism is racism, Spector. It does not matter if you dress it up as anthropological pseudo-science, or genetic pseudo-science. Very simple.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
But don't you dare say some are more misogynist than others, or Cueball will get offended.

---

Great Vacation Destinations

The Catholic Church, Islam, Ba'hai and Orthodox Judaism are far more misogynistic and homophobic than the United Church, Unitarian Universalists, various individual enlightened Muslims and Imams, and Reform Judaism.

Part of the Anglican Church is extremely homophobic. Another part will "bless same-sex unions" but not officiate over them. Another much smaller and braver part will conduct them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
While you are at it Ghislane, take a note here that Spector, despite whatever protestations that Spector may have made regarding his general critique of religion, and its "universal" application regardless of the faith, that he is in fact making it clear that he has particular prejudice against Islam, which he is saying is more misogynistic than others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Not all religions are created equal.

The Catholic Church, Islam, Ba'hai and Orthodox Judaism are far more misogynistic and homophobic than the United Church, Unitarian Universalists, various individual enlightened Muslims and Imams, and Reform Judaism.

Part of the Anglican Church is extremely homophobic. Another part will "bless same-sex unions" but not officiate over them. Another much smaller and braver part will conduct them.

I'm sorry, did I say something illegal there?

---

Right. So anthropolgically speaking it is completely baseless to say that their is something particularly mysogynist about "Islam" and Arabs that makes them more sexist, let alone saying they do not experience love, in the same manner that Europeans do.

I notice the shift btw, from a point about "love" to a point about misogyny. This is sleight of hand. Some people are seriously engaging the concept of love as a quantifiable feature in human experience that can be identified and "rated" for comparative purposes, and then asking us to call it comparative theology and even anthropology or sociology.

Does that mean that we can say that Pakistani men love "their" women more than North American men? Of course we can.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
... "Islam" and Arabs ...

---

quote:

---

What exactly is "defamation of religion"? I don't know.

---

I provided one. Ask Spector for the link. He orginally posted, and defended the article from which this idea orginates. I was some time ago, but to this day he has not repudiated the idea. In fact he reinforced the concept yet again in this thread with his statement:

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
But don't you dare say some are more misogynist than others, or Cueball will get offended.

---

Look up the thread: "Can Middle Eastern Men Love?"

Is the fact that scurilous and racist trash has been posted on this web site relevant to the discussion by so called "Humanist Atheists"? Not at all. What is relevant is that these kinds of thing enter into the regular discourse of Western discussion about Islam and they completely conform to the kinds of things being addressed by the UNHRC's resolution, and in fact Canadian Hate legislation as charactherized by Unionist "as legislation which criminalizes advocacy of violence or genocide against a group based on a prohibited ground of discrimination - but it actually has to advocate in the sense of being likely to give rise to violence."

Such racist dehumanizing trash was posted here, and I don't see anyone draging off Michelle as they did to the Federation of Free Planets guy. I don't see anyone calling for a ban on books that suggest we should "nuke Mecca."

Would you like the cops to stomp out both, or neither?

There are books sold on the shelves of almost every Blue Indigo franchise suggesting nuclear strikes on Mecca? What give Unionist, suddenly when people are directly advocating genocide against Muslims, your rigid defence of the hate legislation goes soft.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I am not going to look up any thread, as you should know not to drag things from thread to thread and start discussions and make comments about things that are not in this thread, just because the people within it are the same from another thread.

Moreover, if you have issues with that thread how about you talk with the mods about it.

---

I don't. Its fine as it is. He asked for an example, and I gave him one from his own source. I don't need his "thought experiments" when I have the clear text of writers he disseminates and reproduces as clear examples of defamation of religion. It is there, and it is but just one example of racist defamation of religion, available here there and everywhere, and you can look it up using the rabble search engine, if you like.

quote:

---

What can we say about this behavior? Can we say that Middle Eastern men who are murderously obsessed with female sexual purity actually love their wives, daughters, and sisters less than American or European men do? Of course, we can. And what is truly incredible about the state of our discourse is that such a claim is not only controversial but actually unutterable in most contexts.

---

From here: Excerpt from Sam Harris's blawg qouted and defende by Spector here

I think its a great ecxample of defemation of religion leading to direct harm against persons.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I don't know Unionist. How do I delete history? Is it or is it not the fact that 90% of the time that this legislation is evoked it is for defemation of Jews and Judaism, and it has never once been used, effectively in defence of Muslims yet in this country.

There are books sold on the shelves of almost every Blue Indigo franchise suggesting nuclear strikes on Mecca? What give Unionist, suddenly when people are directly advocating genocide against Muslims, your rigid defence of the hate legislation goes soft.

Where is the HRC on this? Where are the cops? Where is the media? Where is the public opinion on Rabble? It is protesting the infringement of the right to freedom of speech, precisely the same arguement used by Ernst Zundel and company when defending their scurilous harmful hate propoganda.

---

Just answer my question. Do you want the cops to start cracking down on Islamophobia, or stop cracking down (which you claim) on anti-Semitism?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:
I'm with Spector here, giving "religions" the right to claim "defamation" against individuals or collectives for whatever insults, perceived or real, is a dangerous precedent that's bound to be abused.

---

So you agree then that saying that middle eastern men do not love their women as much a European men as part of your diatribe about religion, is not racist? Not even a little... stupid?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I don't care actually Unionist. What I do care about is the fact that this double standard of enforcement, and the defence of it in the name of "freedom of speech" is unabiguously hypocritical, and the expression of a prejudiced double standard, in and of itself.

---

I thought What a crock !

I read people saying they despise religions but they do not despise their practitionners.

I thought What a crock !

Senator McCarthy also despised communism but did not despise communists. But again, he was anything but a hypocrite.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: sangie ]

Can ME men love

honour killings

Skadal's words were the only ones I agreed with in either thread, at least at this moment, I am going to read them again to see what else floats out at me.

Blackmail doesn't work around here. We speak our minds.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

So you agree then that saying that middle eastern men do not love their women as much a European men as part of your diatribe about religion, is not racist? Not even a little... stupid?

---

No, but I do disagree with people here rewriting others statements completely to defend their own straw men. Here's another example, aren't you against hate speech laws (as they exist) even though people often do say hateful things that other deeply ignorant souls may believe? Well, there is a difference of course, but the difference Re "religion" is IMO more dangerous, as these arguments can just as well be used by the dominant or state religions in any land (including our own) to silence dissent against their own persecutions. Noone should be so constrained by others we allow them to set the terms of discourse.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

You do master the art of distortion, unionist. Earlier you also distorted what I said: According to you I attacked human rights legislation, when the reality (on the record) is that I attacked human rights commissions.

Keep distorting. You may think of yourself as the guru of debating but people are not as dumb as you think they are.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: sangie ]

I hate Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism. And lots more. Yet, I do not hate anyone on account of her religion or lack of religion.

I know sangie's head must be hurting by now, even though I tried to keep it simple.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Okay, I read the 2 threads, that are freaking 2 years old, regurgitated to now.

Can ME men love

honour killings

Skadal's words were the only ones I agreed with in either thread, at least at this moment, I am going to read them again to see what else floats out at me.

However, I think you need to read Reconcilliation Cueball, and the only other comment I have is the threads are 2 years old for fuck sakes

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

This man walks free in this country, is seen on tv and no effort has been made repress this mans evil reacist screed, and instead people are bitching about Muslim people asking that we enforce the laws we apply regularly in defence of some, but not others.

---

Yeah, no kidding, we figured out that U.S. imperialism and its allies are using Islamophobia to help provide cover for their attacks and occupation against Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries in the region. Harris feeds into this propaganda by connecting Islam with jihad and terrorism and so on - and he downplays the connection of other religions with the same phenomena. Oh, and he makes lots of money by doing so, because that fits right into the warmongering post-9/11 climate.

So, now that we have all figured that out long ago, what is the response?

The response of some Islamic Conferences etc. is to condemn insults to the Prophet and ban cartoons and stop anti-Islam speech.

They are wrong, dangerous, reactionary, and must be opposed.

The response of freedom-loving democratic progressive people is to:

1. Condemn and oppose attacks on Muslims, profiling, security certificates, ridicule, hysteria about veils, etc. etc. - as well as the same kinds of attacks against Sikhs and Hassidic Jews and others, although Muslims are currently the big target;

2. Condemn and mobilize against the Canadian and other involvements in attacking Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., and their support for apartheid Israel and its attacks against the Palestinian people and against Lebanon and Gaza etc.

3. Stop blabbing about how religion is good. What a crock.

The bottom line fact is that there is nothing in this toothless HRC resolution that is not completely in accord with the values that this society already applies. Infringement of the right to free speech only seems to be a problem when it is raised by Muslim people.

quote:

---

EU countries, including France, Germany and Britain, voted against. Previously EU diplomats had said they wanted to stop the growing worldwide trend of using religious anti-defamation laws to limit free speech

---

How hypocritical is that, when they all alread have such legislation in place.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

The document, which was put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."

[SNIP]

The resolution "urges states to take actions to prohibit the dissemination ... of racist and xenophobic ideas" and material that would incite to religious hatred. It also urges states to adopt laws that would protect against hatred and discrimination stemming from religious defamation.

---

Notice the phrase: "It also..."

People seem to be having trouble reading beyond what they want to read. Now that you have been made aware of this fact, perhaps you would care to explain how the main body of the resolution is unsuportable if one accepts the premise upon which Canadian hate speech laws are defined?

Moreover, should "hatered and descrimination stemming from religious defamation" be allowed, then?

I know... talk to the hand...

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fight against "attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations" - GOOD.

Fight against "dissemination ... of racist and xenophobic ideas" - GOOD.

"laws that would protect against hatred and discrimination" - GOOD.

"laws that would protect against hatred and discrimination stemming from religious defamation" - CRAP.

Turns out the UK no longer does.

An example of defamation: The concept of "chosen people" as interpretted by racists such as Ernst Zundel.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Even the EU statement does not mention blashemy. It talks about defamation. So one really has to ask what on earth you are talking about. British law is postively run wild with anti-defamation laws and libel laws, and the like.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Oh so if I were to make a particular interpretation of Judaism, and the concept of the "chosen people" and make it central to a thesis whereby this proved the essential ideological perfidy of Jewish people, and then cause hatred and descrimination through spreading my defamation this Judaism, that should be allowed. But not if I were spreading hatred and descrimination through other means?

---

You don't get it.

If you cause hatred and discrimination against Jews, or Muslims, or Christians, you should be condemned and stopped. IRRESPECTIVE of whether you caused it by insulting or attacking some religious dogma or scriptures or not.

The "defamation of religion" is a red herring. What these religious champions want is to ban attacks on religion even when they can't prove it leads to hatred and discrimination.

You know how the U.S. puppets put people on death row for converting from Islam to Christianity?

You know how the Pope tries to deny communion to politicians who support abortion?

You know those who conflate anti-semitism with anti-Zionism, and claim God granted Greater Israel to the Jews?

These are the fanatical scumbags who want "defamation of religion" to be punishable by law. By death, preferably.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Its irrelevant if the example is 2 years old. It is the example I chose.

---

As for the double standards you seem to think there is, I do not see that here, though I do see what you are saying and what you argued in the other threads. And I do see it in the greater world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Oh I see. So it would be ok to assert that the Torah said thing that it does not, or to defame Judaism by repeating the blood libel. But saying there is an international conspiracy of Jews to run the banks and the media would not be ok.

Fitna is ok, but the Horst Wessel song is not?

---

I'll try again.

Spreading hatred and discrimination against people because of their religion or race or colour or sex or orientation or national origin or ability is evil and must be suppressed with the full force of law.

The nature of the propaganda used to do so is irrelevant.

But ridiculing God and Mary and Baby Jesus and Papa Allah and Buddha and the foolish beliefs that many people have about them is just fine - unless it is used to generate hatred and discrimination against people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
My point was that you brought this up as if it was a current discussion going on in another thread, and that everyone participating in this thread knows about it, or should have. Moreover, you made it appear that mspector had stated that in your discussions in this thread, which is not accurate.

---

Sorry for any confusion. I was just looking for a familiar and pertinent example of hate-speech being promoted in the public domain.

Further I submit that Spector continues to defend the statement, and his statment here is a defence of the statement that he has had ample opportunity to retract. He has not done so.

Clearly Spector continues to beleive that there is something extra sexist about Islam. He has argued this repeatedly, and said as much here again, in the context of my example of one Sam Harris pot luck brunches of selected "facts".

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
But don't you dare say some are more misogynist than others, or Cueball will get offended.

---

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I'll try again.

Spreading hatred and discrimination against people because of their religion or race or colour or sex or orientation or national origin or ability is evil and must be suppressed with the full force of law.

The nature of the propaganda used to do so is irrelevant.

---

That's why I raised the question upthread. I wasn't just being rhetorical; I wanted to know what the UN resolution meant by "defamation of religion".

This is not law this is politics. The fuzziness of the resolution itself indicates as much.

Predicatably, the hysterically wild accussations of some kind of "Islamic Plot" determined to attack "our" cherished values and take away our basic rights and freedoms, such as our "freedom of speech" became a clarion call right of the bat, even though, like most UN resolutions, there is nothing in this, and nothing that clearly contradicts legislation that is all already in place in most European countries, and Canads already.

What is of interest to people, apparently, is not the content of the resolution, but its Muslim source.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

"It is regrettable that there are false translations and interpretations of the freedom of expression," the Saudi delegation told the council, adding that no culture should incite to religious hatred by attacking sacred teachings."

Thats where the real problem comes into it. Not saying Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus or athiests are "evil or barbaric" and therefore deserve to die or be deported etc (incitement to violence) but that attacking a particular person's idea of "sacred teachings" can be used as a pretext for prosecution or persecution. As it already is by nations like Saudi Arabia. Needless to say there is little or no freedom of expression in such mono-religious states either.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

This Saudi's disturbing statement would have been right in line with that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:
From the article:

"It is regrettable that there are false translations and interpretations of the freedom of expression," the Saudi delegation told the council, adding that no culture should incite to religious hatred by attacking sacred teachings."

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

---

And moreover, if such attacks were unjustified, in that they amounted to defamation of the form we often see when racists attack Judaism on the issue of "chosen people" and in so doing cause racial hatred and descrimination, is he really so far of the mark?

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Does anyone recall the fatwa against Salman Rushdie?

This Saudi's disturbing statement would have been right in line with that.

How could any progressive person defend such feudalism, of whatever religion?

---

That's it, I am hiding my VHS tapes.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Forget it. I can't even decipher your sentences any more. If you won't defend my freedom to condemn religion, I'll have to survive somehow without your support. Just reflect on what you're doing.

---

We are talking about the specific issue of an resolution put forward by some Muslim nations in the the UNHRC, not Salman Rushdie or Islamic feudalsim. You have gone back on all of your points, and gone back to a sweeping, ad hominem attack upon the people not what they are saying, in fact the Muslims themselves, not the "ideas".

Despite the fact that you always insist this is a battle of ideas that does not attack the people.

I don't even think Iran is on this version of the UNHRC, so your complaint about Salman Rushdie is just more fear mongering, not to mention a sweeping generalization, bordering on prejudice.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
So, monty python would never be able to do a spoof on the Roman Catholics, as "every sperm is sacred", under any country adopting those UN dictates.

That's it, I am hiding my VHS tapes.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

---

Hatred and descrimination stemming from these tapes is manifested how? And furthermore is it defamation to make fun of the Catholic Prohibition against birth control? I thought that the Catholic Church is fairly much in agreement with the Monty Python skit.

Is making the point that Catholics oppose birth control defamation? If so how? To me it would seem to be more "defamatory" to say that they do not... but what do I know.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Hatred and descrimination stemming from these tapes is manifested how? And furthermore is it defamation to make fun of the Catholic Prohibition against birth control?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Weren't people asking the same questions about the Danish cartoons?

Don't pretend that religious fanatics have thick skins and a self-deprecating sense of humour.

---

Those cartoons were not meant in jest, They were an object lesson in mockery, as the editor of the Jylland-Posten made clear, a brave stand taken in the face of Muslim attempts to undermine our sacred values, such as freedom of speech through violence or so he mused. The editor made no bones about identifying "Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."

Making fun of the Catholic stand on birth control is not at all the same as making a picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. It is a pity you can not see the distinction.

It was a provocation, invented out of whole cloth, as noted even by one of the cartoonist, who did not draw Mohammed, but a child named Mohammed writing on a chalk board that the "editors of the Jylland-Posten are provacateurs," in Arabic.

And he was right.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
They were an object lesson in mockery...

---

quote:

---

Making fun of the Catholic stand on birth control is not at all the same as making a picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. It is a pity you can not see the distinction.

---

The editors of the Jylland Posten are anti-Muslim racists. It is that simple. Did you know the very same newspaper rejected cartoons mocking Jesus, shortly thereafter? So much for the object lesson in freedom of speech.

quote:

---

Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

---

But go on defend the racists tooth and nail. Continue to defend the overt double standard, and you can call it a principled defence of freedom, or whatever. Really the only freedom you are defending is your own.

But that's not "freedom" that is privilege.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance in the present context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him. [...]

---

I am sure the reaction to the Monty Python movie might have been quite different, had they targeted Catholics only, and had Terry Gilliam explained that "some Catholics... demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings," and that they must"be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule", when in fact the moral point is that niether Catholics or Protestants are above moral reproach.

There was no such egalitarian message being presented by the Dutch Cartoons.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Whatever the Saudi delegate said, in the first case does not represent the view of the whole group presenting the resolution, and two is more or less irrelevant to the resolution itself.

Again, the resolution "urges states to take actions to prohibit the dissemination ... of racist and xenophobic ideas" and also says something about the "defemation of religion." One presumes that the definition of defamation would be part of whatever laws that were drawn up. Laws, I might add, that we do not need to draw up here, since we already regularly charge people for defamation of religion, when it is deemed to spread hatred and descrimination.

What is all the fuss about? We already do this here, all the time. The only thing we do not do is apply them in cases where Islam is defamed.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

When's the last time anyone was convicted of defamation of a religion in Canada, and what law were they convicted under?

quote:

---

India, as one of 14 countries to abstain, said the text addressed the problem insufficiently from a narrow perspective because it focused on one religion.

... The resolution expresses "grave concern at the serious recent instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media."

---

Ahh yes there it is. Missed that sorry.

How different is painting a Swastika over the Star of David from putting a bomb in Mohammeds Turban? its pretty prejuducial, and sounds like deliberate harmful stereotyping of sacred symbols and or persons? Does it matter if it is a perons or a symbol that is sacred? Lets Remind hereslves that Muslim's don't have any religious symbols as a rule so using the word "persons" is particular to their case.

What you do with it, or to it, is what constitutes defamation.

[ 03 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
It is called hate speech legislation. And certain kinds of defamatory statements against religion are regularly entered in the evidence as part of the case.

---

And I thought you opposed hate speech legislation yourself. The next question I think would then be what kind of "defamatory" statements are these unelected representatives trying to ban exactly, and in what venues, with what measures using what legal processes? That's usually the core of these issues to me; the best indicator of what these so-called defenders of faith are really about.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

And I thought you opposed hate speech legislation yourself.

---

I corrected you, just like I corrected Unionist. I don't really have a firm view one way or the other on the legislation. Its a pretty simple principle that the law for it to be equal must be applied equally. Why is it that when a person argues the "point" of something, it is always presumed they are supporting it.

For a fact, I rather oppose any limitation on freedom of expression. My point is that this proposal by these Muslim countries is not at all out of line with what we already do here. So, it makes me curious why people are so upset about it.

This province has existed with a indpendent Catholic school board for years. People were all well and fine with having culturally specific tribunals adjudicate small matters of law within communities until the prospect of Sharia was raised. Then suddenly these courts were banned. The idea of having Jewish schools just like the Catholic ones were well on the way to reality until people got spooked by the prospect of publically funded Madrassas.

I thought it was interesting too, when Spector brought up the issue of the House of Lords just suddenly picked up and repealed the blashemy law. Just about the time that some clever Muslim lawyer might decide to make a name for himself by trying to put the law into action. It was a very timely change of heart.

So? Is this society really secular?

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I corrected you, just like I corrected Unionist.

---

So what is it? I support hate crimes legislation or not? Is it possible not to care one way or the other really, or not to have an opinion, or to have that opinion defined by how the law is actually appllied as opposed to how it is theoretically concieved?

But I am glad we seem to agree about the secularity of society. It is not. However, it is very interesting that "secularity" becomes an issue only when one "outsider" religious group begins to demand equal treatment under already established principles of laws that are completely unsecular already. Very similar in fact to the way people get upset by Muslims calling for action to be taken against hate speech against them, when such is already enshrined as a principle of law here, just hardly ever applied in their case.

Instead its an attack on our "sacred" Christian based secularity and our right to freely speak our minds about them.

My point? Quite simple. A large force behind this recent drive toward secularity is actually tinged with xenophobia and has little to do with the principle of secularity per se. This is not to say that the people here are not avowed secular loyalists on principle, but to note that this is not always the case, and that much of the politcal motivation behind this drive is led by racists like Sam Harris, not Babblers, but even some Babblers give him respect.

IMO, any serious discussion of Sam Harris should be banned outright on this web site, given that we already ban the like David Irving, Ernst Zundel and Paul Fromm. Quoting those guys seriously would get you banned right quick.

[ 03 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

We are talking about the specific issue of an resolution put forward by some Muslim nations ...

---

What is a "Muslim nation"?

Is that like a Jewish nation, or a Christian nation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
IMO, any serious discussion of Sam Harris should be banned outright on this web site, given that we already ban the like David Irving, Ernst Zundel and Paul Fromm. Quoting those guys seriously would get you banned right quick.

[ 03 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
IMO, any serious discussion of Sam Harris should be banned outright on this web site, given that we already ban the like David Irving, Ernst Zundel and Paul Fromm. Quoting those guys seriously would get you banned right quick.

---

I was the first to mention Harris in this thread:

quote:

---

Unionist: One thing I find extremely disturbing about some of the crop of "new atheists" (especially Sam Harris) is the very convenient linkage of Islam with terrorism post-9/11. Any such attempts are vile and are in the service of Bush-Brown-Harper and their ilk.

---

But that's not good enough for you.

What bothers you is not the linkage - it's the attacks on Islam itself as being a backward anti-human ideology (like Catholicism and Judaism and others). That's what you and Michael and other champions of faith would like to "ban" (to use your word), as you have amply demonstrated in many threads.

Your comment - and Michael's "amen" - shows how far down the abyss one can go when confusing attacks on religion with attacks on people.

ETA: I'm still waiting to hear what a "Muslim nation" might look like. Would other religions be tolerated?

[ 03 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Your comment - and Michael's "amen" - shows how far down the abyss one can go when confusing attacks on religion with attacks on people. unionist

---

Please understand, unionist, that for most people it is extremely hard to believe that one would hate a (legal or illegal) ideology, tendancy or practice or an activity yet have respect for the people doing, promoting, observing, defending and subscribing to or involved in it.

How could you hate sexism, racism, Nazism or pedophilia (to name a few) but have respect for people believing in them, practicing them, promoting them, defending them etc..?

Or do you make a difference based on "legality", thus your logic as well as thoughts, emotions, likes, dislikes, hate, love, respect, abhorrance are managed by some legislation and you are only waiting for religion to become illegal to switch to hating people who are adherent to religion too?

My personal impression is that you hold religion on the same esteem level as pedophilia. But to say I despise pedophiles is socially and legally acceptable but to say I despise followers of religion X or Z or all is not.

[ 03 April 2008: Message edited by: sangie ]

Yes, I substantially concur with the spirit of much of your position. I also don't think that you are primarily responsible for the leakage of certain types of racist stereotyping one finds in the Liberal/left view when tainted by Orientalism, though I am a little troubled by the appearance of a kind "modernist" superiority, exampled by the use of the term "feudal" in a general statement that seems to condemn the entire Muslim world as backward. That said the extreme version of this resolves into racist ranting of people like Sam Harris, whom you have no trouble identifying as a bigot, clearly.

I have really only been addressing some of your ideas and you laterally in this thread, and moreso others here, and more directly the general xenophobic trends in this society, as exampled by what I think is a hysterical reaction to this resolution, which is pretty toothless, and also mild, and vague. Hardly a call for an international injunction against Blasphemy as it has been posed here by some, it is in the main an objection to xenophobia, and a call for legal restraints thereof. In fact the knee-jerk reaction of locating the resolution as a call for legal repression of Blasphemy, when such is not even mentioned in the resolution, seems to me to be a latent reflection of certain types of racist stereotyping, in and of itself. In other words, precisely an example of what is being objected too.

The quality of the persons making the proposal, has no bearing on the proposal at all, except perhaps to highlight the fact that Muslim people are just as capable of hypocrisy, as anyone else.

In response to your question about "Muslim Countries" I will reply that it is shorthand for Muslim majority nations.

[ 03 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sangie:
Please understand, unionist, that for most people it is extremely hard to believe that one would hate a (legal or illegal) ideology, tendancy or practice or an activity yet have respect for the people doing, promoting, observing, defending and subscribing to or involved in it.

---

Try harder and you'll understand.

quote:

---

How could you hate sexism, racism, Nazism or pedophilia (to name a few) but have respect for people believing in them, practicing them, promoting them, defending them etc..?

---

Lots of people, when asked what their religion is, say: "I'm Catholic". It rarely means they are uncompromisingly homophobic, opposed to birth control, divorce, treating women as equals, reproductive choice, etc.

And even if a person is all those terrible things, we (by that I mean progressive people) do not hate them, because then the world would never change. We look for the root causes and attack them. The root causes are often economic, social and political privilege, exploitation, subordination of one class, nation, sex, race by another. And almost invariably, religion comes to the fore to justify the status quo or divert people's indignation into useless channels instead of changing the situation.

So you see, I hate religion the way I hate ignorance. But to say that's equivalent to hating ignorant people is, even you will admit, very ignorant. Religion is like a disease. It is precisely because you love the sufferer that you work hard to find a cure.

quote:

---

My personal impression is that you hold religion on the same esteem level as pedophilia.

---