From AA:

RESOLUTION FOR "GLOBAL BLASPHEMY LAW" BACK ON UN AGENDA

A proposal designed to criminalize "defamations of religion" is expected to be taken up by the United Nations in early November.

The action stems from a non-binding resolution adopted earlier this year by the U.N. Human Rights Council at its notorious "Durban II" meeting, and sponsored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. That group has pushed for blasphemy statutes within the U.N General Assembly since 1999. All have encouraged countries to take action by limiting "offensive" or "hateful"
speech aimed at religious groups, especially followers of Islam.
The new resolution, however, is expected to be automatically binding on all U.N. member countries, including the United States.

A draft amendment introduced by Pakistan would mandate "legal prohibition of publication of material that negatively stereotype, insults, or uses offensive language" to describe any religious believers, creeds and groups. Proponents frequently cite a series of cartoons which appeared in a Danish newspaper three years ago that in featured unflattering portrayals of the prophet Mohammed.
Muslims throughout the world took to the streets amidst violence and threats.

The resolution will also test the role of the United States, which recently joined the UN Human Rights Council. That move is widely seen as an effort by President Barak Obama to engage Muslim countries and further a new foreign relations policy.

Reaction by the Obama administration and independent human rights groups to the new proposals was swift. On Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lambasted the OIC proposal in opening remarks for the release of the State Department's Annual Report on International Religious Freedom.

"The United States will always seek to counter negative stereotyping of individuals based on their religion and will stand against discrimination and persecution," Clinton said. "But an individual's ability to practice his or her religion has no bearing on others'
freedom of speech."

Leonard Leo, chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom told a congressional panel last week that the only religion mentioned specifically in the OIC draft resolution happened to be Islam.

"Aside from Islam, the resolution does not specify which religions arte deserving of protection, and explain how or by whom this would be determined," he told reporters.

Christian groups have been especially vocal in sounding the alarm about the resolution. Many arte engaged in aggressive proselytizing throughout the Third World. Middle East Islamic states in particular have been using their respective blasphemy statutes to curtail such practices, and some penalize adherents of Islam who convert to Christianity. For secularists, though, the blasphemy proposal would severely limit free expression, and penalize even the most academic critiques of religion -- Islam, especially -- if religious believers are "offended" or "hurt." Humorous depictions of religious faith could be stigmatized as well, and critical political commentary touching on the subject of religion would be taboo.

OIC -- Cheerleader for Blasphemy Laws

The prime mover behind the U.N. blasphemy proposals is the Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC. The group is comprised of 57 member states, and has a permanent delegation to the United Nations. Few are even nominally democratic. The OIC symbol is a green flag (the color identified with Islam), with a red crescent and white disc at the center. Arabic script declares "Allahu Akbar," or "God is Great."

The OIC was founded in September, 1969 against the backdrop of
the failed Arab-Israeli war and the loss of Jerusalem, a major
Islamic holy site.

In 1990, 45 ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference subscribed to the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights -- but only to the extent that such freedoms were compatible with Quranic law.
That has resulted in frequent collisions in member states and the OIC Parliamentary Union over the "limits" of Western values regarding women, civil rights and anything considered defamatory of religion. Officially, the OIC adopted its own Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which declares, in part, "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah."

Many Islamic states have enforced stern prohibitions aimed mostly at Christian outreaches that engage in "missionary work" and proselytizing. This has prompted groups like the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty and Christian Solidarity Worldwide declaring their opposition to the UNHRC resolution. Many Christian organizations and leaders, though, have spoken out for other blasphemy proposals that would restrict free speech -- often under the guise of combating "hate" -- when their particular religious sensibilities are attacked or criticized.

Links and resources used in this story:

/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
Wikipedia entry for "Blasphemy"

/http://www.caslon.com.au/blasphemyprofile.htm
Survey of blasphemy statutes and practices throughout the world.

<http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1028/p02s01-usgn.html>
FBI arrests two Chicago men for Danish terror plot Federal authorities announced Tuesday that they had broken up a Chicago-based plot to help attack the offices of a Danish newspaper that once published cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammed. Publication of the cartoons in 2005 sparked outrage among many Muslims internationally. It also triggered calls by Islamic militants for retaliation.

<http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2009/10/20/individual-rights-must-come-before-protecting-religious-institutions/>
Individual Rights Must Come Before Protecting Religious Institutions The Obama Administration has changed the way the United States relates to the world. I tend to think this is good on many levels, but change can be nerve-racking. An example of this is the recent United Nations Human Rights Council resolution regarding freedom of opinion and expression co-authored by the U.S. and Egypt. (You read that right. Egypt, who has demonstrated little interest or understanding of freedom of speech, was our co-author.) The diplomatic importance of reaching out and demonstrating goodwill to our neighbors in the world is obvious, but this resolution makes even some strident Obama supporters a little nervous.

<http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1027/p08s01-comv.html>
Islamic countries push a global 'blasphemy' law As a new member of the UN Human Rights Council, the US must persuade other countries not to go along.

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603218.html>
Clinton speaks against anti-defamation laws Islamic countries seek to restrict freedom to criticize religions

Let's see some body draws a few cartoons and hundreds are injured and a few killed, by Muslims ......Today the Taliban blew several dozen people to hell and over the period of several years killed hundreds for ....blasphemy?

And calls us infidels........

Nope don't need this "law"

Of course we don't need the friggin' U.N. either but THAT ain't gonna happen any time soon!!

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
Let's see some body draws a few cartoons and hundreds are injured and a few killed, by Muslims ......Today the Taliban blew several dozen people to hell and over the period of several years killed hundreds for ....blasphemy?

And calls us infidels........

Nope don't need this "law"

Of course we don't need the friggin' U.N. either but THAT ain't gonna happen any time soon!!

Tell the people who are receiving medical treatment and food from the UN that it isn't needed, Oh Christian. What do you suppose Jesus would say about the UN?

quote:

Originally posted by reducetension:
Tell the people who are receiving medical treatment and food from the UN that it isn't needed, Oh Christian. What do you suppose Jesus would say about the UN?

I don't know what he'd say, but I believe that the money we (and other countries) give to the UN for such relief efforts could be equally well used by the Int'l Red Cross to provide similar results - without this blatant attack on freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

True, but I have personally had unpleasant experiences with the Red Cross helping. At least the UN, inspite of this "Islam" thing, are in place in a wider variety of places to help. But..... sometimes helping isn't a solution, either.

He would take one look at that mess and ask us what the hell we were thinking..Oh heathen!!

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
He would take one look at that mess and ask us what the hell we were thinking..Oh heathen!!

So, are you saying charity should only be done in the name of Jesus? I kind of got the idea it didn't matter who did the feeding (like the Samaritan story.)

I cannot believe that anyone is even taking seriously the notion of enforcing 'blasphemy' laws.

When I see such things, it really makes me wonder how shallow some people really are. If you need big government to step in and stifle people from expressing their opinions regarding your faith, obviously your faith isn't very strong to begin with. Given the dubious origins of that belief system (most organized religions, actually), it is little wonder that many of its uneducated adherents need any opposition to be stifled. Heaven forbid they think for themselves and realize just how silly it is to the rest of the world.

Note: I only mentioned the uneducated, as most learned men/women of faith can actually debate their beliefs and do not need or want a muzzle put on the world to keep people from saying things that 'hurt their feelings'.

This attempted ruling is about the only thing on which I think I've ever agreed with the ACLJ.

And, I think the ACLU would agree with them, to about the same degree I would.

(It's too bad the ACLU doesn't get the air time the ACLJ gets, in the south. The ACLJ has become a big player in the divisiveness game.)