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

[Jingle]

Perhaps the Pagan/Heathen/Druid etc. conversation would be better in a separate thread? Here we are really discussing whether or not insulting another religion should be allowed as part of freedom of speech or if it should be allowed to be legislated. Shouldn't we?

[Merlyn]

Interesting how the thing got to this point, I must have missed how this happened.
I'll try not to use the word again.

Diplomats have walked out of a UN anti-racism conference during a speech by the Iranian president in which he described Israel as "totally racist".

Let's get another view, that of the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8008572.stm

The walkout is a public relations disaster for the United Nations, which had hoped the conference would be a shining example of what the UN is supposed to do best - uniting to combat injustice in the world, says the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva.

Was it a disaster?
Or did it bring an ugly reality to light? Is the whole world going to let these two religions cause WW3? Perhaps not now that this has so clearly pointed out what the real deal is.
The Jewish state and the Muslim state do not totally represent the religions as a whole. And of this, and the defamation of religion thing... what did the leader of Iran just do??

"And in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine."

I see in this that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has shown his "true colors" and his agenda. This grand-stand of hate has echoed across the globe.
He further states his country will wipe Israel off the map, and that "all must bow to Allah". I have read his "letters".

Merlyn

[Druid Faqir]

Peace!

I must say, I've never had this "distinct pleasure", but I HAVE heard him call for the (quote) "mushroom cloud" (end quote) to rise again, so to speak...That, believe me, was all I could bear...
(I dearly hope that translation was some sort of politicised distorsion, or else it's not a pretty picture) As a side-note, one of the things I hate about not knowing Arabic is that whenever this kind of speach is translated into English I find myself incapable of figuring out if that's what these people are ACTUALLY saying or not...

Blessings!
/|\

[Merlyn]

Hi Druid Faqir,
Now that this has passed, and the result seen, I hope Muslims speak out, use freedom of speech and denounce Ahmadinejad. He is doing a lot of harm for any progress the world is trying to make.

That's about "it" for this, aside from a flying clown noses..

Best of the day,
Merlyn

[Andeg Myeengun]

Perhaps the Pagan/Heathen/Druid etc. conversation would be better in a separate thread? Here we are really discussing whether or not insulting another religion should be allowed as part of freedom of speech or if it should be allowed to be legislated. Shouldn't we?

Has the board started crossing threads as well? We already have double posts and a misbehaving auto-pruner.
I think some of you were looking for this thread:
http://druidry.org/board/dhp/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=31864

Let's get back to politics, shall we?

[Corwen]

Yes I am too proud to be a "pagan".
Even if it is a biker group, 1%. (oddly many are Christian)
Pagan takes on a few meanings. I would rather be called what I am, a druid. (neo druid for those who want)

The word Druid also has a lot of meanings, though you would seem to want it to mean just one thing, whatever you want it to!

[Corwen]

Gods ...Not again!!!

I don't want to have this conversation again either!

Can we just agree that to around 100,000 people in the UK (according to the last census) and lots more elsewhere the word Pagan is an umbrella term for someone who follows a Druidic (though please note, I'm not saying all Druids are Pagans...), Wiccan, Witch, Heathen (Northern Religion/Asatru etc) or possibly a Shamanistic, Animistic or other duotheist or polytheist path like Santeria. Its nearly (but not quite) a useless term because its meaning is so broad, but some of us like it too for precisely that reason.

And I thought Heathen was derogatory, whereas Pagan was "normal" for believers of the old path... Could you clarify that?

Aylyn, the word Heathen is used by some Pagans who follow a path based on ancient Nordic religion, as practised by the Norse, Icelanders and Anglo Saxons of yore.

The words Pagan and Heathen are also used by Christians and others to denote those of no religious faith, though this was not the original meaning of the words (both being, basically, ways of saying old fashioned, wild, strange country or heath dweller sometimes with connotations of ' country bumpkin').

These are the definitions you will find both in the dictionary and among those who study religion.

[pangurban]

Aelfarh wrote:Gods ...Not again!!!




I don't want to have this conversation again either!

Can we just agree that to around 100,000 people in the UK (according to the last census) and lots more elsewhere the word Pagan is an umbrella term for someone who follows a Druidic (though please note, I'm not saying all Druids are Pagans...), Wiccan, Witch, Heathen (Northern Religion/Asatru etc) or possibly a Shamanistic, Animistic or other duotheist or polytheist path like Santeria. Its nearly (but not quite) a useless term because its meaning is so broad, but some of us like it too for precisely that reason.

Well said I do not want to rehash this conversation over and over again either, but we are doomed to every time someone infers that Druid and Pagan do not go together. This is my last word on the subject. Said with fingers crossed that we have finally put this one to sleep for good.

[Merlyn]

though you would seem to want it to mean just one thing, whatever you want it to!

This simply is not so, and I have NEVER insisted on this. You seem to have derived this idea from my own feelings of what I have to deal with.
Please stop, you are completely wrong.
If I personally do not wish to be called a Pagan, I have that right.

However; I owe this explanation to you and others here, so here goes,
I seem to not get this right, so I will try to explain. I do not take offense at the word, it's just not what I want to be called.
There are a few reasons for this. And they make no difference to this board, this order or anyone else really.
It's not that I am not pagan, it is that I am not "a" Pagan.
It is no reflection on the OBOD or it's members, and has nothing to do with them. Please read further and carefully;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagans_MC
I am a druid, and an artist. I build motorcycles for a living. I custom paint them and much more. In the world I live in, a pagan is a 1% biker club of outlaws. If anyone refers to someone as "a pagan" what they mean is this. It means "outlaw".

I cannot have any association with the word where I live. It is sad, it is wrong, and it is no one's fault here. It is much like the sun wheel, and how the native American can no longer use it because it was defiled by Hitler.

I was unaware that this was an issue to some here, of pride. I apologize for my misunderstanding.
But for me, where I live, to be called a pagan has nothing to do with spiritual belief.

Strange eh?

I remember when I first dated my now, wife. I explained that I was "Pagan." She recoiled with disgust and told me I had NO chance. I then had to explain the difference between "The Pagan motorcycle Club" and "being Pagan".

Since then I simply call myself a druid, and skip the issue.
It's not right, it sucks, and I hate the fact they defiled the word Pagan.
If others wish to explore this, and discuss how to change the problem, please have Jingle split this into a different topic. In fact I will take responsibility and do soHope that explains it.
Otherwise, please understand how I have to deal with this, and others like myself who live where I live.

Merlyn

[mwyalchen]

Diplomats have walked out of a UN anti-racism conference during a speech by the Iranian president in which he described Israel as "totally racist".

The walkout is a public relations disaster for the United Nations, which had hoped the conference would be a shining example of what the UN is supposed to do best - uniting to combat injustice in the world, says the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva.

Was it a disaster?
Or did it bring an ugly reality to light? Is the whole world going to let these two religions cause WW3? Perhaps not now that this has so clearly pointed out what the real deal is.

Well, without disagreeing with you about some of what goes on in Iran:

One of the ugly realities this brings to light is that the bulk of Western states are strong backers of Israel (which, lets not forget, is the one nuclear state in the Middle East, and certainly does mistreat Palestinians on the basis of their being Palestinian) and are prepared to wreck the UN conference in order to make a point about their dislike for Ahmenibad. So much for free speech there, then. Ahmenibad is grandstanding; but so too are our representatives.

There are many people around the world who do indeed feel that what is going on in Israel and Palestine is a prime example of racism. What they will see in this walkout is the West (yet again) trying to hold the high moral ground, while refusing to accept any criticism of ourselves or those we back.

[Merlyn]

Let's not get into the "west thing" as Cuba, Mexico and all are included in this generalization.

But I do agree with you, that the (Jewish-Muslim) Israel-Iran specific, thing is a powder keg, and supporting either side is a problem.
The creation of the "world order" after the WW was an issue some have risen over and some have chosen to drag around with rocks in their shoes.

The Palestine issue is as much a royal screw-up as things get, and I do not know from the issues who is the greater problem.
I do know that supporting Israel is becoming a mistake much like supporting any "club". We then become responsible for issues we have no control over, and selling weapons to an angry country is a serious mistake.

This walk out has highlighted a lot that speaks to this issue, and when Germany walks out, along with France and so many others, it indicates a far reaching problem that is NOT "west" in the idea of American involvement. Eastern values of Christian faith are not "west". Christ and Christianity, is EAST. Simple as that.
Displacing this all on us because we supported the end of genocide, by a country like Iran that still stones people to death publicly, is a bit "off key".

The genocide of the Jewish people was wrong, but what Stalin did was just as wrong.
How do we move forward? The US used to openly support slave trade, and we have risen above that to the point we elected a black president.
It took a civil war, the many smaller steps and a lot of soul searching. But we did it.

Can we hold other countries to a standard like this?
Can our world afford not to?

Merlyn

[Aelfarh]

What they will see in this walkout is the West (yet again) trying to hold the high moral ground, while refusing to accept any criticism of ourselves or those we back.

I think that is the important thing about this. I don't deny the right we have to make critics to eastern countries, or a religion, be it Islam or Christianity (or Druidry for that matters) But how can we ask for them to accept criticism if we don't accept it to ourselves and those supported by the west.

It's a double standard to measure...we just need to look a little about it: Torture is wrong, unless it was made on Guantanamo, It's wrong if Russia invade illegally a sovereign country, but is ok if the USA do it. Is wrong if Iran is racist against Israel, but nobody cares if Israel is racist against Palestine to some extreme point that is everyday closer to be called genocide . And the sad thing is that we can see the same pattern all over the world and back in time for at least decades.... Castro is a bad ruler, but the US and UK support Pinochet. Hussein was a good governor who kept Iraq out of theocracy while it support the US interest, once it serve no more, it was the most horrible tyrant. And the list go on and on. So it's always the same, the bad ones are the others and it's never our fault.

So yes, we have to protest against resolutions as the one who open the discussion of this post. But my people has a saying: A good judge starts by his own home.

[Merlyn]

Very true,
It takes a wise person to step up, attend the conference and know how to directly deal with someone like Iran's ruler, on the spot, correctly and with out shame.

Why is it that neither politicians nor priests can fill this role? It points out why the original Druids were a threat to Cesar.
They were wise, and imperial rule fears wisdom?

Go figure

Merlyn

[Beachgirl]

Do Muslims see Jews as a threat? You betcha! But so do Christians. Ironic since both religions are built upon Moses and Abraham. And what is it about us that's so scary? Our pursuit of education? It's the common lore of the marketplace that knowledge is power -- Micro-Econ or Macro, I forget -- and every stockbroker knows that law, not just the Jews. Anyone who desires to succeed in their respective field knows that. So, why are the Jews a threat? Because they carved a productive country out of the desert? And, by the way, happened to choose the only patch without oil!!! Why does the Vatican still want to convert us?

Racism. The need for one person to dominate/wipeout/blame another person. Like Bush naming Iran to the "Axis of Terror," and Chavez calling Bush "Satan." It's "my tribe is better than your tribe," regardless of race, ethnicity, citizenship, or gang affiliation. The basic survival instincts of Early Man. Can we never get beyond our primal imprinteur? Or will we always be subject to bullies?

Those of us who worked in support of space exploration were awed with the first photos of Earth because you couldn't see national borders. It was just one gorgeous world. And some of us briefly held the dream that it would all be one, some day. Everyone's differences honored and respected.

[cursuswalker]

Everyone's differences honored and respected.

Except that its never really everyone's is it? What about those who do not respect another's path? Are we to respect that difference?

[Aelfarh]

Can we never get beyond our primal imprinteur? :

In more than 8000 years of civilization we have not... I seriously doubt we can at all.

[Merlyn]

I guess that's the point with this example,
Convenient rule; Allah is supreme. Any doubt expressed as critics is punishable by death.
That works in a theocracy. That fails everywhere else.

A main difference that someone of the Jewish faith can speak to better then I, is that to aspire to Judaism, means becoming successful in some 30 or so aspects.
This is very different from the Muslim religion, but the issue of subjugation remains in both, in different ways. Perhaps members of each of the two with insight can explain these better then I.
But the confusion of what the rest of us see, begs that we do understand. It is a given that most of this is smoke and mirrors to the end of nothing more than greed.
That being obvious in some ways, makes me expect the true believers would object to such things as we see here in the U.N.

Best I can put it, though some use clown noses to make this point!

Merlyn

[Druid Faqir]

Peace!

Perhaps members of each of the two with insight can explain these better then I.

If you can re=phrase the question so as for me to get the point, I'll try...LOL!

I guess that's the point with this example,
Convenient rule; Allah is supreme. Any doubt expressed as critics is punishable by death.
That works in a theocracy.

"Theocracy" comes from 2 greek words: Theos=God and kratos=power; thus a a theocracy is "a state ruled by the Power (or, for a more adequate translation) by the Law of God.
A man once asked Jesus: "What is the greatest Comandment? And He replied: "Love God and love thy naighbour as thyself".
Any stae who's Constitution is THAT Law (because, put in different wordings, you can find it in all spiritual traditions, hence it is universal) can entitle itself a Theocracy, for at it's verry foundation would be found the Chief Decree to which all others are subservient and from which all others are derived.
That, however, SADLY means that there are no theocracies on Earth at this point and yes folks, that goes for Saudi Arabia and Iran too...
So no, that does NOT work in a theocracy, however noble making people realise they were created by the same One may be.
Because that's what Muhammad came to teach his people, who were a bunch of fragmented warrior-tribes, each with its own pantheon of divinities. All he basically proclaimed was: "People, listen up now! You were put here by One God who created ALL of you and He wants you to love each-other. Now put those spears down and kiss and make up already!"

Blessings!
/|\

[pangurban]

Because that's what Muhammad came to teach his people, who were a bunch of fragmented warrior-tribes, each with its own pantheon of divinities. All he basically proclaimed was: "People, listen up now! You were put here by One God who created ALL of you and He wants you to love each-other. Now put those spears down and kiss and make up already!"

I do not except the concept of the one true God which makes me an infidel and punishable in some eyes. I do not mean this to cause offence but I cannot work out whether you are an idealist or naive to not see that the extremists rule Islam, only today on the news did they show sharia law being meted out in Pakistan by the barbaric practise of whipping a man. In other cases women get sentenced to death their only crime being that they were raped, all done in the name of Allah with the backing of the Koran.

[Druid Faqir]

Because that's what Muhammad came to teach his people, who were a bunch of fragmented warrior-tribes, each with its own pantheon of divinities. All he basically proclaimed was: "People, listen up now! You were put here by One God who created ALL of you and He wants you to love each-other. Now put those spears down and kiss and make up already!"

I do not except the concept of the one true God which makes me an infidel and punishable in some eyes. I do not mean this to cause offence but I cannot work out whether you are an idealist or naive to not see that the extremists rule Islam, only today on the news did they show sharia law being meted out in Pakistan by the barbaric practise of whipping a man. In other cases women get sentenced to death their only crime being that they were raped, all done in the name of Allah with the backing of the Koran.

The idea was that the same One created both of us (my view) and thus the only concievable act of infidelity is hatred.
Naive? Nope. I know bad when I see bad. To be naive would be like: "Women get sentenced to death for being raped? Oh, don't worry... that's just temporary. Look at the bright side my friend and stop being so gloomy!"

I NEVER said or thought ANITHING of the sort in my life! So no, I'm not naive.


Blessings!
/|\