Could it become illegal to criticise religion, and Islam in particular?

The UN is considering implenting a binding resolution forbidding defamation of religion; (making blasphemy illegal, in other words). So, while religious extremists can chant "death to the west" with impunity in mosques around the world (and, equally, fundamentalists like Fred Phelps can declare that 'God hates fags!'), any criticism of religious views or suggestion that there might be a link between extremist religious views and violence, could lead to prosecution.

The UN passed a non-binding reolution last year, and it has already been adopted by some countries - read here what happened when an Indian newspaper reprinted an article from The Independent.

See here for one take on the story: Lou Dobbs interviews Christopher Hitchens

P.S. I'm having trouble with these two links at the moment, so haven't been able to check they work ok. let me know if they don't.

That's Sheffield Forum knackered if it is then...

They cant make it for islam inparticular cos them types of rules breed racism.

Read Johan Hari's article; it's not just Islam that's being singled out for protection, more that a substantial islamic lobby in the UN is leading the charge to mandate the prohibition of 'defamation' of all religions. Most of the groups/countries pushing this notion are more concerned with Islam than Xtianity, Hinduism, etc., but presumably include the other religions to try to make it a political statement of common religious interests, rather than Islamic protectionism.

In a word... no.

Any fascist, intolerant, oppressive movement could dress itself up as a religion and seek exemption from criticism in order to grow unchallenged... just like Islam!

Read Johan Hari's article; it's not just Islam that's being singled out for protection, more that a substantial islamic lobby in the UN is leading the charge to mandate the prohibition of 'defamation' of all religions. Most of the groups/countries pushing this notion are more concerned with Islam than Xtianity, Hinduism, etc., but presumably include the other religions to try to make it a political statement of common religious interests, rather than Islamic protectionism.

What's with the Xtianity?????

Why are you crossing out the Christ bit?????

In a word... no.

 

Any fascist, intolerant, oppressive movement could dress itself up as a religion and seek exemption from criticism in order to grow unchallenged... just like Islam!

Wrong answer. The question is half-rhetorical, but the correct answer is: "yes it could, if the UN passes this binding resolution and governments decide to adopt it".

BTW, all organised religions are fascist, intolerant and oppressive, and don't take me word for this: read the Torah, Bible, Koran, Vedas, etc. Religion is based on revelation from deities, which regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life, and being divine, must be inherently unchallangeable. This is the quintessence of totalitarianism!

Most British people are familiar with religion as presented by the Anglican church, many of whose wishy-washy bishops would barely be counted as Xtians in some other countries. But even the New Testament, of gentle-jesus-meek-and-mild, where Yahweh supposedly creates a new covenant with humanity, is based on the idea that all are created guilty (by Yahweh) and that this guilt can only be expunged by the acceptance of a human sacrifice (facilitated by Yahweh through human agents) that happened 2,000 years ago in an obscure backwater of the middle east. The core tenet of Xtianity is the scapegoating of a lone jew to remove the sins of all humanity! And the punishment for rejecting this immoral offer is eternal damnation!

If the UN implements the new binding resolution I could be at risk of prosecution for pointing this out. I could be in trouble if I criticise the traditional jewish practice of circumcising 8 day old babies, or the muslim practice of wearing the hijab/niqab, and so on.

This won’t happen and if it did start too there would be such a backlash it would not last that long.

Religion is in the autumn of its life span in its current format. It will be gone within the next 200 years.

Wrong answer. The question is half-rhetorical, but the correct answer is: "yes it could, if the UN passes this binding resolution and governments decide to adopt it".

OK, it could become law but it won't and even if it does it would be unenforceable. OK?

BTW, all organised religions are fascist, intolerant and oppressive, and don't take me word for this: read the Torah, Bible, Koran, Vedas, etc. Religion is based on revelation from deities, which regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life, and being divine, must be inherently unchallangeable. This is the quintessence of totalitarianism!

 

Most British people are familiar with religion as presented by the Anglican church, many of whose wishy-washy bishops would barely be counted as Xtians in some other countries. But even the New Testament, of gentle-jesus-meek-and-mild, where Yahweh supposedly creates a new covenant with humanity, is based on the idea that all are created guilty (by Yahweh) and that this guilt can only be expunged by the acceptance of a human sacrifice (facilitated by Yahweh through human agents) that happened 2,000 years ago in an obscure backwater of the middle east. The core tenet of Xtianity is the scapegoating of a lone jew to remove the sins of all humanity! And the punishment for rejecting this immoral offer is eternal damnation!

 

If the UN implements the new binding resolution I could be at risk of prosecution for pointing this out. I could be in trouble if I criticise the traditional jewish practice of circumcising 8 day old babies, or the muslim practice of wearing the hijab/niqab, and so on.

I agree that all religions are "are fascist, intolerant and oppressive". But some religions are clearly more are fascist, intolerant and oppressive than others!

When the negatives of any religion start impacting on those who do not subscribe then there will always be complaint, opposition and resistance. Trying to label this as an act of "intolerance", or even making it illegal, will not stop it.

Zamo,

I agree with you on all points, but there is a risk that; if UN ratifies the thing, other govts, including ours, will feel obliged to reflect the change to some limited degree in their own legislature. I'd say the chances are less than 50%, but that's not good odds.

On the point about which religions are the most oppressive, fascistic, etc.; the others have had, and will have again, their turns. The early history of the 20th century was scarred by the impact of the Catholic right wing - 'European fascism' and 'Catholic right wing' are virtually interchangeable terms during this period.

If the fundamental xtianity so popular in the middle and southern states of America suddenly found itself in a similar situation to Islam, you'd soon see Xtian suicide bombers, etc. Let''s not forget the Oklahoma City bomb in 1995.

Religious intolerance, or rather intolerance of the unreligious, is rife in the USA. President Bush Sr stated publically that atheists probably shouldn't be considered to be American citizens. Compare the hoops American politicians have to jump through to convince voters that they are among the faithful religious with the distance British politicians are generally inclined to try to maintain from faith positions.

Finally the people of Israel, arguably a people united solely by religious cultural history (although very many are apparently quite atheistic), are currently engaged in an ogoing war with arab (mainly Muslim) indigenous populations in Palestine over a plot of land supposedly promised to the children of a mythical figure (Moses) as the culmination of an exodus that Israeli archaeologists have now demonstrated to never have happened.

That's not even mentioning the continuing societal scarring in Northern Ireland. Only a few years ago the greatest terrorist threat to Britain was, once again, Catholic.

I could drone on for hours, but I have to pretend to do some work now...