UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism

[challupa]

And beyond that, deliberately ignoring an unjust law rightfully disparages the entity that established the law, and if unenforced that disparagement is institutional rather than personal. Effectively, this resolution further undercuts the scant credibility the UN has left.

Yes the UN has very little credibility currently. However, they are an organization that has the "Potential" of being an enforcer and if that ever happens we have a huge problem. They have been passing proposals that they don't enforce NOW, but there very easily could be a day when they will be in the position to do so. The world needs to stand together and vote this proposal down because it is not in the best interests of all of humanity. The United Nations needs to do just that, unite nations, not divide them with special needs issues like this latest one.

 

[idea]

We should be able to criticize what we please. This takes away a valuable freedom.

I agree.

If there is no truth in the criticism, why not discuss the misconceptions?
If it is not a misconception, then the problems need to be dealt with.

I think the whole idea of the UN is communistic, a single entity to rule/control the whole world rather than giving people freedom to act in their own conscience... I guess Russia would like to say they were "uniting" Europe / Georgia etc... they were not "uniting" anyone, they were taking them over.

 

[LuisDantas]

I respect your point of view. But I disagree with it.
Bigots can be prevented from spewing their bile to a wide audience through legal gagging. The laws against holocaust denial are the best example for this that I can think of.

However, the Nazi German situation is very good evidence that Law is less than useful to prevent such situations. Nazi regime was 100% lawful.

In certain circumstances I think it is appropriate for society as a whole to draw a line in the sand and say this is the limit - no further.

True. But law is not a proper tool for doing so.

 

[J Bryson]

If someone speaks out in praise of Osama Bin Laden, I do not think that the person should be detained for speaking his or her mind. I can see the need for protective custody if requested, but I choose to err on the side of freedom of speech rather than limitations on the same.

Holocaust deniers are allowed to spew whatever nonsense they wish in my country. This nation is none the worse for it, and they are rightfully seen by the vast majority of people as total fools. Fred Phelps is allowed to preach his hate-filled bile against gays. Because of this airing, people are far more aware of the dangers of hate speech, and he has been publicly condemned even by those who see homosexuality as a sin.

Freedom of speech is practical. Banned speech is dangerous, since it makes the government or religion seem scared of an idea or a concept. A government or religious institution that cannot stand up to open criticism and speech (however foolish or misguided) is not a government or religious institution worth defending.

 

[Judgment]

I agree.

If there is no truth in the criticism, why not discuss the misconceptions?
If it is not a misconception, then the problems need to be dealt with.

Hi idea. Agree back.

 

[Seven]

It's interfered with all the time.

Maybe so, but I still don't think it should be. Whose to differentiate between good and bad criticism. A law limiting religious criticism is obviously vulnerable to abuse, especially when it's enforced by the religious.