Muting the search for truth
On Friday, WORLDmag.com columnist Ken Blackwell, the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, delivered a speech in Mexico City on the issue of “Defamation of Religions” and the UN’s efforts to enforce the protection of ideas and beliefs instead of protecting the people who hold those ideas and beliefs.
In his remarks (which can be downloaded as a pdf by clicking here), Ken pointed out:
The [Organisation of the Islamic Conference, a collection of 56 Muslim-majority countries that first proposed a "Defamation of Islam" UN resolution in 1999,] has stated its main complaint is the stereotyping of Muslims around the world, especially post-9/11. Although the grievance of harmful stereotyping of Muslims as ideological extremists is sincere and factual, the current effort by the OIC to alleviate religious stereotyping with an international legal protection against the “defamation of religions” is misplaced and counter-productive. Conceptually, the claim of “defamation of religions” is inadequate as a legal cause of action. Traditional defamation laws are meant to protect individuals from false truth claims and do not extend to the protection of ideas, philosophies, or religions. Therefore, “defamation of religions” turns the purpose of defamation laws on its head. Human rights are also meant to protect individual persons only. Not only do “defamation of religions” laws fail to protect individuals, but they are also used to harass individuals. Unfortunately, the vague notion of “defamation of religions” laws allows government to use such laws to suppress minority religious individuals and voices of dissent.
I encourage you to download and read all of Ken’s speech.














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top18 Comments to “Muting the search for truth”
As usual it’s all about defamation of Islam.
People say Christians slander Muslims.
They say their Muhamed is the only one, and we say our Jesus is the only one. The difference is they kill us over it.
There are a lot of comics against Christians, but we don’t kill people over it.
Why is it ok for Muslims to slander and kill Christians?
The Bible tells us why we are the ones who will be hated.
Report comment to moderator
The Bible tells us why we are the ones who will be hated.
As soon as I get my Constitutional Amendment linking persecution of Christians to persecution of homosexuals passed, things should get really interesting.
At one time, I think it was called “Crusades Time,” Christians and Muslims killed each other with equal vigor and enthusiasm.
Now when Christians meet a Muslim with bombs strapped to his or her body, the Christian says, “Stop. Let me explain why my God is better than your God in a calm, peaceful, loving way.”
There are a lot of comics against Christians, but we don’t kill people over it.
I would like to think this is addressed to me, but somehow I doubt it.
Why is it ok for Muslims to slander and kill Christians?
I don’t think it is OK. Especially the slander part.
The Bible tells us why we are the ones who will be hated.
This strikes me as kind of kinky. On the one hand, you think you should be in charge of running America. On the other hand, you think you are hated, or perhaps should be hated.
Perhaps you are very confused.
Report comment to moderator
Good post RN. You are in rare form today. Perhaps you had a little too much fiber this weekend and it has you all stopped up or something.
Report comment to moderator
What if the religion incorporates in Delaware? Wouldn’t that elevate it in the eyes of Blackwell and make it eligible for extraordinary legal protection?
Report comment to moderator
Well that would be silly Scroop…..religions cannot incorporate in a state that doesn’t pay state taxes because they are tax exempt so it doesn’t matter which state they incorporate in. But it was a good try.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name – don’t you think the Crusades card is getting a little shopworn?
Report comment to moderator
If we have to be responsible for slavery, why not the Crusades.
As usual Christians and Jews BAD, Muslims and others GOOD.
Muslims have never done anything bad and have always done charitable stuff. Right?
Report comment to moderator
Why does RANDOM have to go to a church to join a group doing charitable work?
Report comment to moderator
Because atheists on their own do not do charitable work. It would go against their grain because why be charitable, it’s not as if God is keeping track or anything.
Report comment to moderator
Well RN DID join them Wednesdays to do charitable work.
Maybe atheists just don’t get together to do charitable work.
They DO get together to indoctrinate their children at atheist camp. Don’t they say indoctrinating children is a bad thing?
I would love to see what goes on there. I hope they don’t talk about Christians at their camp. Their children might become curious to find out why they shouldn’t become one or hang out with any.
Report comment to moderator
Mickey,
I did download and read all of the speech as you suggested. Blackwell’s points are true and accurate.
Report comment to moderator
Not only do I go to church to do charitable work, I am polite to the church members.
On the other hand, I don’t join a church full of turkeys with vast right wings.
Christians are probably more charitable than atheists. I think I wrote that on wmb about five years ago. We’re going in circles here.
That Christians are more charitable than atheists does not make them correct about the nature of the universe or about evolution and so on. As I’ve said, “Christianity is a virtuous swindle.”
It also helps alleviate the existential dilemma, and is one of the best ways of alleviating suffering ever developed.
I have never sent my child to “atheist camp.” My daughter and her partner have said they plan to have my granddaughter attend various church services as she grows older so she can make up her own mind.
On the other hand, when I read here statements such as my child has decided to accept Christ at the age of 6, my eyebrows suffer pain from hitting the ceiling.
No child at that age is mature enough to decide on whether they are a religious believer. I didn’t decide I was an atheist until I was 10. My wife didn’t decide until she was 15. If our daughter had told us she was a Christian, we probably would not have driven her from our door, though if she ranted like many people here do, we might not have invited her to Christmas dinner that often.
For that matter, as atheists, are my wife and I allowed to celebrate Christmas?
However, I once joked that I would write my granddaughter out of my will if she turned against her mommies. The most seriously humor-impaired comment poster at wmb got their knickers in a bunch over that comment. My granddaughter is not in or out of my will. At the age of five she is not mature enough to be trusted on her own with the $14.95 we will be leaving somebody after we croak.
Croak, croak, croak.
Report comment to moderator
RN: “I don’t join a church full of turkeys with vast right wings.”
You joined a church–as in became a member?
How can you be sure they aren’t “turkeys with vast right wings”?
How can you be sure they aren’t on WMB?
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t join a church. My wife and I were married in a Unitarian church. Her mother wanted a church wedding. I figured the Unitarians were the least churchly church I could think of. It was a nice wedding.
A few years later, my brother was married by the same minister in the same church. Our daughter, about two, ran around babbling at the wedding. My wife and I were embarrassed, but the minister took it in stride.
I like the people at the church where I volunteer. I feel no urge to join them at their services. They don’t bug me.
Report comment to moderator
It’s true, perhaps, that children aren’t mature enough to understand Christianity at a young age. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t teach them. I accepted Jesus at… well, I don’t really remember, but I was young. I then grew into an understanding of what that meant. Many don’t, and fall away, perhaps to return with age, perhaps not. Parents, in the end, can’t force the decision.
Report comment to moderator
Actually on topic: Unfair stereotypes of Muslims? Maybe.
Unfair characterization of Islam? No.
But it’s the UN. What else is new.
Report comment to moderator
A bit of historical memory will also help: Western democracies had laws on their books gains blasphemy deep into the 20th C. Blasphemy is little more than the defamation of religion found in other countries. Blackwell’s point is well-taken.
Report comment to moderator
Let me highlight some words from Blackwell, with whom McLean, at least, seems to agree:
“the grievance of harmful stereotyping of Muslims as ideological extremists is sincere and factual“
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!