Defamation of Religion Passes at U.N. Human Rights Council

[mwyalchen]

Really??? Great! I've been waiting to tell them to their face how wrong they are, especially since telling the truth to a tyrant's face is among the greatest of Islamic virtues

And I suspect that tyrant to Islam is synonymous with infidel.

No. It refers to Islamic tyrants. It was also established very early in Islam that a people have the right to remove a bad ruler. (Or at any rate, to attempt it!)

By the way, although I have little sympathy for much of Islamic practice, it does disturb me that so many of the comments here focus only on the well-known and common ways in which Islam is attacked in the West. Is that all that we know of Islam?

[pangurban]

By the way, although I have little sympathy for much of Islamic practice, it does disturb me that so many of the comments here focus only on the well-known and common ways in which Islam is attacked in the West. Is that all that we know of Islam?

Perhaps this is because the only face of Islam we are shown is the extremist one, because the extremists shout the loudest. If this does refer to Islamic tyrants as you say maybe if a few of the many Islamic tyrants around the world were overthrown we would have a better regard for it.

[pworrell]

Perhaps this is because the only face of Islam we are shown is the extremist one, because the extremists shout the loudest. If this does refer to Islamic tyrants as you say maybe if a few of the many Islamic tyrants around the world were overthrown we would have a better regard for it.

One of my very dear friends, and the man who taught me Classical Arabic, is Islamic. He was here in the USA on a student visa.

When Sept 11th happened, I spoke with him and he burst into tears. He couldn't understand anyone hating anyone else badly enough to do such an action. He also said "This is not what Allah commands us to do."

Sadly, he was a member of a "Arab association" kind of organization (a student club with lower political aspirations than a Greek fraternity in the USA) in Morocco and the US revoked his visa and gave him very little time to leave.

[Druid Faqir]

Oh, I'm pretty sure that some fundamentalist Muslims are well aware of this thread and there are links running back to their message boards.

Really??? Great! I've been waiting to tell them to their face how wrong they are, especially since telling the truth to a tyrant's face is among the greatest of Islamic virtues

Be careful what you say. In line with Islam's famous tolerance and wisdom 'Apostasy' is punishable by death. Since you profess to be a Muslim this rule applies to you. How does it make you feel knowing that if you had a change of mind your fellow religionists would feel justified in killing you?

Peace!
Well, martyrdom doesn't sound too bad...
At any rate who's talking of apostasy here???
Beacause I am certainly NOT. I said extremist Muslims are wrong (i.e. considering non-Muslims as animals etc.). I didn't say that to be a Muslim is wrong!
There's a difference.
Skydove, here's a big hug right back at you!
mwyalchen, thanks for piching in! Yes, "tyrant" in an islamic context means precisely what it does in every other context: people like Stalin, Hitler and Saddam Hussein. It has nothing to do with religion, rather with behaviour.

The best jihad (lit. striving) is a just word before a tyrannical authority.
(Prophet Muhammad--pbuh)
http://www.sufism.org/society/articles/PeaceHadith.htm

Blessings!
/|\

[pangurban]

Perhaps this is because the only face of Islam we are shown is the extremist one, because the extremists shout the loudest. If this does refer to Islamic tyrants as you say maybe if a few of the many Islamic tyrants around the world were overthrown we would have a better regard for it.

One of my very dear friends, and the man who taught me Classical Arabic, is Islamic. He was here in the USA on a student visa.

When Sept 11th happened, I spoke with him and he burst into tears. He couldn't understand anyone hating anyone else badly enough to do such an action. He also said "This is not what Allah commands us to do."

Sadly, he was a member of a "Arab association" kind of organization (a student club with lower political aspirations than a Greek fraternity in the USA) in Morocco and the US revoked his visa and gave him very little time to leave.

I am not suggesting for one minute that all of Islam is fanatical, and I was very careful not to do so. But we cannot escape the fact that a great deal of Islam is controlled by the fundamentals, and to suggest that as a religion it should be afforded any extra protection is just plainly wrong.Until the moderate voice is heard louder that the extremist one I retain the right to say where Islam is wrong.

[Merlyn]

Hiya Druid Faqir,
Hot potato this one eh?
The staggering difference here is theocratic. In essence to be a level field, it would be impossible as Islam uses theocracy, democracy does not.
Point in fact, to "not defame Islams religion" is to not defame their form of government. Will they do the same? Are they willing to take this same stance and not defame democracy?

Democracy is not a religion, at least not to us, but if we see the extremist view, among others, they see capitalism as we see extremist Muslim.
This is how wildly distorted all of this has become, calling another country "the great satin" is as defamatory as it can get, yet they ask us not to ever say anything in return....

Isn't it always the case, the one who calls the kettle black is the pot?

I see it all as pandering to $$$ as the UN has lost respect in many ways.

It is not a situation worth defending as the resolution has no viability.

In light,
Merlyn

[pangurban]

yet they ask us not to ever say anything in return....

This I feel is the heart of the matter, if you want your religion to have protection in law you must afford the same to others, and it is this unwillingness I see in Islam.

[Merlyn]

Hi pangurban
This all bases itself on the assumption that Islam is all one and speaks with one voice.
However this is only an assumption used when convenient, and a misconception. Perhaps if there was a "United States of Islam" governed by a unified directive of Muslim Theocracy it might hold water, so to speak.

Defamation of religion and the ideal of abolishing such would have to first rely on reformation of religion to do the same.
As long as religions hold such directives as they do, to insist on slavery of non-believers, salvation through martyrdom etc. the entire concept of this agenda is hypocritical.

An assumption that America (the USA) is governed by Christian values, comes from various realities exampled by "In god we trust" on our capitalist debt notes (money), and other examples which show through things like the trail of tears.

Can a democratic government be totally void of spiritual revelation? Can law (legal system of government) be totally void of ethical values we aspire to in religion?
Would socialism ever work without a class based system? Is our teaching of animal farm to our high school students anything less than what we point to in Islam?

When a church is erected, the people within monopolizing all aspects of the local community, and the religion dictating political direction and then forcing others to conform in order to be a part of the culture created, it becomes a microcosm of theocracy.

For critical comments to end, we would have to begin with the critical reformation of all religions.

Some "Christian" churches hedge on this reformation like the UU and Quaker church. Can Islam? Can Zion?
I see our world humanity becoming very tired with it all, and as a world community, it looks like the small town church on a very large scale.

Merlyn

[Beachgirl]

This is amazing! And all because some Cro Magnan asked "What was that?" after witnessing a streak of lightning. Voila', religion.

The founding fathers in the USA very wisely wanted a separation between church and state. But after reading all your comments, I'm beginning to understand that religion is just like a political party. It has a platform of beliefs it wants to disseminate to the populace, it requires donations to keep operating, and has stratagems for convincing more of the populace to follow its beliefs. Both religion and political parties make promises they cannot keep, and make statements they cannot prove.

But the worst thing they both have in common is greed. They covet. They cannot have enough money/power/influence. Just look at the state of the USA. With all our churches, temples, mosques, and revival tents, have you ever seen a greedier, close-minded bunch?

So, where does freedom of speech stand in all of this? To me, this is the jewel in our Bill of Rights. Have we, as a society, become so politically correct that we can be bullied by a group that we identify as terrorists into muzzling our freedom of speech? Or is it still the oil we covet?

Regardless, I bless all of you on this string for your honest discourse, for your open minds and hearts. I live in a city that is very progressive and out-spoken for human rights. We don't always flow with mainstream America, and my friends and I sometimes feel we are quite alone. But I know, because of you, that we aren't.

[Corwen]

You are lucky to have such a constitution, its one of the things about the US I admire. We don't have a written constitution, and this does leave us more vulnerable to governments who would curtail our rights, as we've seen recently.

[Andeg Myeengun]

You are lucky to have such a constitution, its one of the things about the US I admire. We don't have a written constitution, and this does leave us more vulnerable to governments who would curtail our rights, as we've seen recently.

In Canada, we have a constitution, but there's a little section called the Notwithstanding Clause. It basically means that Parliament gets to override the constitution if they invoke that section. Fortunately, there are only two major laws using this. One is the infamous ``Bill 101,'' which severely restricts the use of languages other than French on signs in Quebec. The other is an oft-forgotten law called the Indian Act which makes a large number of people into second-class citizens.

Still, I enjoyed Canada's response to this mess.

The Canadian representative said: "It is individuals who have rights, not religions. Canada believes that to extend (the notion of) defamation beyond its proper scope would jeopardize the fundamental right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of expression on religious subjects."

Just goes to show that our (big C) Conservatives aren't all bad. Nice to see a good line like this after the whole mess with `prorogation.'

[DJ Droood]

Just goes to show that our (big C) Conservatives aren't all bad. Nice to see a good line like this after the whole mess with `prorogation.'

I think governments in a democracy inherit communities with established customs and standards...they probably got elected in the first place because they vaguely represented the majority opinion. As long as we common folk keep working towards a secular society built on reason and compassion, instead of superstition and divine punishment, our governments should keep reflecting that.

[Druid Faqir]

Peace!
And that, I believe, would be much easier to establish and maintain if everyone (PARTICULARLY the religious branch, but also the others) would accept and understand that hatred has no place in spirituality...but humams will be humans, ever keen to smash to pieces every last chance at true happiness they have.
Blessings!
/|\

[Beachgirl]

Our last president blurred the separation of church and state, and it is so much better not having one stupid man's religion forced on us, surrepticiously.
Unfortunately, it seems hatred was a part of his spirituality. If our world leaders can spout hatred, and go to war as an expression of their hatred, how will we ever have peace?

Grass movements, anyone? How do we influence the UN Human Rights Council so that this doesn't happen again?

[DJ Droood]

Now if only the U.N. could somehow keep them from defaming themselves we could all hold hands and sing "I'd like to Teach the World to Sing":

Hundreds of Afghans swarmed a demonstration of more than 100 women protesting Wednesday against a new marriage law they say restricts wives' rights. The women were pelted with small stones as police struggled to keep the two groups apart.


The law, passed last month, says a husband can demand sex with his wife every four days unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse - a clause that critics say legalizes marital rape. It also regulates when and for what reasons a wife may leave her home alone.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/0904 ... nistan_308


I am still anxiously awaiting the angry protests from the Muslim community who chose to live in the Secular West over the treatment of women by their co-religionists in Afghanistan (and Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, etc.)

[Druid Faqir]

Peace!
Well, if one voice counts for something, here I am!
Marital rape...
This reminds me of a YouTube vid I saw not too long ago... A 70-something year-old woman in Afghanistan who was wearring her veil like any Muslim woman. In fact she even covered her face (the Qur'anic prescription for the veil being that it cover every part of a woman's body EXCEPT her face and palms). Only her eyes were "exposed" (pardon the crude expression). You know what happened to her? She got beaten to a pulp by a few very peaceful-minded fellows who demanded that she also cover her eyes! Now I ask you, can anyone go any lower?!
Hell will freaze over before I stay silent about these things! Some have said the Muslim World is a place that "everyone wants to get out of and nobody wants to get into" (end quote). Mostly I dissagree, but for Afghanistan I'll make an exception...
Blessings!
/|\

[cursuswalker]

[Aelfarh]

I agree with the general opinions here. If we loose our freedom of make critics to religions and governments then we are doomed. It had taken hundreds of years and countless blood to win that freedom to see it gone. I'm a strong defender of separation of religion and state, I see with surprise and sadness that there are few states, even in the western world were this is clearly put into legislation and in practice. I'm really relief that the most powerful country of the west is getting away a little bit from the teochracy it was becoming, but still its hardly controlled by fundamentalist Christians. In my country it took several wars to ensure the separation of religion and state, I'm very proud that still today Mexicans do not accept that their governors and presidents use any word as "god, religion, etc." in their speeches or policies. It seems so strange to me when I listen to politicians using that words that I forgot that this separation is a minority even now in the world.

We should stand clear to avoid that any religion get in the way of freedom of speech in our countries.

[Andeg Myeengun]

Marital rape...

It's not just marital rape that the new Afghan law allows. It is plain and simple slavery. This law allows husbands to beat up and even lock up their wives. Unfortunately, our media seems to be neglecting the slavery and only focusing on the rape. Even the CBC is doing it, and I thought they were doing really well after they showed the killing of Ian Tomlinson when the BBC wouldn't even mention him. I guess all the news crews are buying into the idea that `sex sells.'

Some have said the Muslim World is a place that "everyone wants to get out of and nobody wants to get into" (end quote). Mostly I dissagree, but for Afghanistan I'll make an exception...

I have a friend from Afghanistan, and I an so glad that she is safely here in Canada right now.

For a while, I actually thought Afghanistan was making progress with the help of the west. Now there is that big question ``Why is the west now helping a government that officially supports slavery?''

I hope that the Afghan government reconsiders.

[Aelfarh]

Now there is that big question ``Why is the west now helping a government that officially supports slavery?''

Natural gas pipes, opium trade, military bases "strategically" located.... enough for western governments