Are you with UN "global" law prohibition the provocation "mock/insult/lie", about all religions ?

[ImmortalFlame]

I-just one question , is not mock and lie and insult bad things ?

So are flicking people or burning toast, doesn't mean we should outlaw them.

 

[YmirGF]

I hope to find an atheist with the law "from his heart", that's mean lot of me .
-just one question , is not mock and lie and insult bad things ? or it's just good things to use it against religions ?

I think this wish to see "an atheist with the law" shows how disconnected from reality you may well be. I would be shocked if any self-respecting atheist were in favor of the backward kind of thinking behind this supposed "law".

Aside from this, I doubt very much those behind such an effort, such as the OIC, actually understand how this would INHIBIT the continued spread of their own religion, as you would be giving those against you a very large card to play with.

Essentially, we would be rewarding a small collection of unintelligent, emotional people for their bad behavior. From the day forward, from the enacting of any such legislation, all ANYONE would have to do is cry, "Blasphemy!"

As a parting thought, do you think that telling those who believe that Jesus Christ IS the Son of God Almighty, that that same Jesus was JUST a prophet, 2nd to Muhammad, is NOT blasphemous to those believers?

Edit: Blasphemy laws only work in religious theocracies that FAVOR one religion above all others. If you level the playing field to include ALL religions and ALL points of view you would effectively end proselytization.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

If there was no insulting or lying allowed by the UN, does that mean we'll see the destruction of all patriarchal regimes, communities, and ideologies?

Patriarchy, GRRR! Hulk SMASH! :computer:

 

[Storm]

If there was no insulting or lying allowed by the UN, does that mean we'll see the destruction of all patriarchal regimes, communities, and ideologies?

Patriarchy, GRRR! Hulk SMASH! :computer:

But, see, that's not what the people behind this proposal want. They want to be free to lie and insult to the nth degree, which makes suppressing dissent tactically advantageous.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

But, see, that's not what the people behind this proposal want. They want to be free to lie and insult to the nth degree, which makes suppressing dissent tactically advantageous.

Well dang it. It's too bad misogynistic and homophobic regimes will be given the green light by the UN more free reign to insult, lie, and commit mass murder against women, queers, and non-believers.

I think my last words will be me spitting toward the UN before the axe falls on my neck if it ever came to that.

 

[Storm]

Well dang it. It's too bad misogynistic and homophobic regimes will be given the green light by the UN more free reign to insult, lie, and commit mass murder against women, queers, and non-believers.

I think my last words will be me spitting toward the UN before the axe falls on my neck if it ever came to that.

Right there with ya.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well dang it. It's too bad misogynistic and homophobic regimes will be given the green light by the UN more free reign to insult, lie, and commit mass murder against women, queers, and non-believers.

I think my last words will be me spitting toward the UN before the axe falls on my neck if it ever came to that.

That's probably not a good idea. If this law passes, it probably extends to spitting as well.

 

[Storm]

That's probably not a good idea. If this law passes, it probably extends to spitting as well.

What are they gonna do? Behead her (us) again?

 

[Caladan]

Well dang it. It's too bad misogynistic and homophobic regimes will be given the green light by the UN more free reign to insult, lie, and commit mass murder against women, queers, and non-believers.

I think my last words will be me spitting toward the UN before the axe falls on my neck if it ever came to that.

Precisely. Why should we protect by international law dogmas which not only demonize but actively persecute women, homosexuals, and other minorities?
It is Kosher today in developed countries to make satire of religious bigotry, who in their right minds would want to go backwards from this development?

I also find the obsession with holocaust denial here in this thread and in other threads to be disgusting. I find it very telling that there are Muslims who's natural reaction when a European cartoonist makes a satire is to take out their frustration on the Jews.
There is no comparison between satire over ideas, to holocaust denial. No rational connection, no intellectual connection, and no connection of integrity.
If you want to compare it, then compare it to satire about Christianity, communism, Marxism, etc. Not about actual European and Jewish history.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What are they gonna do? Behead her (us) again?

If they're going for medeival punishments, they could always draw and quarter you.

Personally, I think they'd probably go for a much more acceptable and progressive form of punishment. Like a full frontal lobotomy, for example.

 

[Revoltingest]

Precisely. Why should we protect by international law dogmas which not only demonize but actively persecute women, homosexuals, and other minorities?
It is Kosher today in developed countries to make satire of religious bigotry, who in their right minds would want to go backwards from this development?
I also find the obsession with holocaust denial here in this thread and in other threads to be disgusting. I find it very telling that there are Muslims who's natural reaction when a European cartoonist makes a satire is to take out their frustration on the Jews.
There is no comparison between satire over ideas, to holocaust denial. No rational connection, no intellectual connection, and no connection of integrity.
If you want to compare it, then compare it to satire about Christianity, communism, Marxism, etc. Not about actual European and Jewish history.

The one thing in common is the freedom to speak them.....here, anyway.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

If they're going for medeival punishments, they could always draw and quarter you.

That would really suck. It would take a while.

If I had my wits about me, though, I'd keep spitting.

Personally, I think they'd probably go for a much more acceptable and progressive form of punishment. Like a full frontal lobotomy, for example.

Then the spitting would be constant with all the drooling and mindlessness (LOL). Call it my last hurrah living in protest of a global injustice.

 

[England my lionheart]

I hope to find an atheist with the law "from his heart", that's mean lot of me .
-just one question , is not mock and lie and insult bad things ? or it's just good things to use it against religions ?

IMO if something is true it can withstand any amount of mockery lies and insults,just one question though,is it ok to use them against anything outside of your religion?.

 

[Gui10]

this is a step back for freedom expression

 

[FanaticStudy]

this is a step back for freedom expression

It's not, because it aint never gonna happen.
If it ever did happen, it basically meant we succumb to the demands of religious fanatics and illiterate people living thousands of miles from where these statements take place.

And yes, I seriously think you're illiterate and a religious fanatic, if you can't ignore what some guy says half across the globe.

Again, I'm all for freedom of religion, people can practice whatever they want to, but no one can tell me what to do, just like I don't tell them what to do.

 

[Breathe]

"Order! Order! Do you kids wanna be like the real U.N., or do you just wanna squabble and waste time?"​

-- Principal Skinner, The Simpsons​

Thought it was appropriate.

I really don't think this will happen. If it did, be the start of either the downfall of the UN, or the start of something very dystopian.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I think you may be thinking about the Burr-Hamilton duel. Burr fatally wounded Hamilton in that fight.

Yes, you are right. I was thinking of Hamilton.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I could care less that other countries have not progressed as fast as we have..
In fact, let them steep in their primitive ways until they petrify for all I care.

I do, however, care that they have the gall to think that every country should go backwards and join them in the dark ages.

I never suggested that. I'm just saying just because we have freedom of speech we should not expect every third world country to have it too. It may take another 100 years for that to happen or like you say, they may petrify.

What I laugh at is that anyone would think the UN can make us do anything. :no:

Perhaps if I travel abroad I might have to consider other laws and authorities but here in my country the law of the land is free speech whether I approve of everything that is said or not.

I am smart enough to know that if I don't defend speech I don't like then my speech will not be protected either.

Many people hate free speech because they don't want to give everyone the same freedoms they have. You know, we have to keep them Homo's and women in line or our supreme power will be taken from us.

The next thing you know, women will want to drive and get an education! :slap:

 

[Kerr]

I hope to find an atheist with the law "from his heart", that's mean lot of me .
-just one question , is not mock and lie and insult bad things ? or it's just good things to use it against religions ?

Insult is a bad thing. Mockery can be a bad thing, depending on how its done. The movie i mentioned before is an example of when its not a bad thing, imho. On the other hand, if someone mocks someone else out of racism or intolerance or just to offend them, thats bad. Humor is great but not an excuse to be a jerk.

And for the record, I dont mind mocking myself and others. Having humor is a good thing . But I also follow a simple rule when it comes to mockery. If they ask me to stop, I stop. If they are offended, I apologize. I never mean any harm when I joke with someone.

 

[Falvlun]

Here is the UN press release
Foreign Ministers Urge Member States to Take Charge of Efforts Aimed at Strengthening Multilateral System as General Debate Continues

Here's a relevant excerpt from there, from the minister of foreign affairs for Malaysia:

The authors of the Declaration of Human Rights, he was certain, did not have denigration in mind when they cited the need to protect freedom of expression. “When we discriminate against gender, it is called sexism; when African Americans are criticized and vilified, it is called racism; when the same is done to the Jews, people call it anti-Semitism; but why is it when Muslims are stigmatized and defamed, it is defended as freedom of expression?” he asked. The principle of moderation should be ingrained in all societies, as that implied a high degree of tolerance, trust and mutual understanding, and emphasized dialogue as an important tool for resolving disputes. Moreover, it was important to practice moderation in light of the “rising tide of extremism”.

Interesting take, however, I think he misses something. We certainly are not praising people for their bigoted remarks against Muslims. They are, and should be labeled, xenophobes or anti-Muslims or whatever appropriate epithet, just like racists or sexists, etc. The thing is, we do let racists and homophobes spew their hatred. We call them racists, but they are still free to speak. I think, perhaps, the minister is not quite making that connection.

In addition, certain portions of Muslims react violently, not just to intentional, directed insults, but to anything they deem a mockery of Islam, including depictions of Muhammed. It's not quite fair to lump all that in as on par with those groups who are truly Islamophobic.