UN: Beliefs have rights that trump free speech

posted at 12:55 pm on March 3, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Christopher Hitchens rips the UN in his inimitable fashion today for surrendering the right to free speech — and criticism — through the veil of multiculturalism.  For centuries, the West has defined freedom and liberty in individual terms, so as to keep the abuses of the state and other orthodoxies at bay.  Now the UN has given away the legacy of individual freedom and endorsed the idea that criticism of Islam should somehow be actionable:

In the same weeks that this resolution comes up for its annual renewal at the United Nations, its chief sponsor-government (Pakistan) makes an agreement with the local Taliban to close girls’ schools in the Swat Valley region (a mere 100 miles or so from the capital in Islamabad) and subject the inhabitants to Sharia law. This capitulation comes in direct response to a campaign of horrific violence and intimidation, including public beheadings. Yet the religion of those who carry out this campaign is not to be mentioned, lest it “associate” the faith with human rights violations or terrorism. In Paragraph 6, an obvious attempt is being made to confuse ethnicity with confessional allegiance. Indeed this insinuation (incidentally dismissing the faith-based criminality of 9/11 as merely “tragic”) is in fact essential to the entire scheme. If religion and race can be run together, then the condemnations that racism axiomatically attracts can be surreptitiously extended to religion, too. This is clumsy, but it works: The useless and meaningless term Islamophobia, now widely used as a bludgeon of moral blackmail, is testimony to its success.

Just to be clear, a phobia is an irrational and unconquerable fear or dislike. However, some of us can explain with relative calm and lucidity why we think “faith” is the most overrated of the virtues. (Don’t be calling us “phobic” unless you want us to start whining that we have been “offended.”) And this whole picture would be very much less muddied and confused if the state of Pakistan, say, did not make the absurd and many-times discredited assertion that religion can be the basis of a nationality. It is such crude amalgamations—is a Saudi or Pakistani being “profiled” because of his religion or his ethnicity?—that are responsible for any overlap between religion and race. It might also help if the Muslim hadith did not prescribe the death penalty for anyone trying to abandon Islam—one could then be surer who was a sincere believer and who was not, or (as with the veil or the chador in the case of female adherents) who was a volunteer and who was being coerced by her family.

Rather than attempt to put its own house in order or to confront such other grave questions as the mass murder of Shiite Muslims by Sunni Muslims (and vice versa), or the desecration of Muslim holy sites by Muslim gangsters, or the discrimination against Ahmadi Muslims by other Muslims, the U.N. resolution seeks to extend the whole area of denial from its existing homeland in the Islamic world into the heartland of post-Enlightenment democracy where it is still individuals who have rights, not religions. See where the language of Paragraph 10 of the resolution is taking us. Having briefly offered lip service to the rights of free expression, it goes on to say that “the exercise of these rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs.” The thought buried in this awful, wooden prose is as ugly as the language in which it is expressed: Watch what you say, because our declared intention is to criminalize opinions that differ with the one true faith. Let nobody say that they have not been warned.

Where does this stop?  Will the UN next declare monarchy as a protected class of beliefs, about which criticism should be treated as a hate crime?  Fascism?  White supremacy?  How about American exceptionalism?  What about Hinduism, a polytheistic belief system that Islam frequently and bitterly criticizes?

Perhaps Muslims will get hoist by their own petard, but don’t count on it.  The UN isn’t looking for intellectual honesty or consistency in this declaration.  They are looking for ways to surrender to the radical Muslims who threaten the world through terrorism, or in the case of Iran, through nuclear weaponry.  Ironically, this clause could also keep moderate Muslims in the West from criticizing radical extremists within their own faith — which is desperately needed and happens mainly in the US.

The notion that ideas and belief systems have “rights” goes against every step towards liberty that mankind has taken.  Individuals have rights; ideas and belief systems have values and policies that should remain open for debate, criticism, satire, and ridicule.  Without that essential freedom, people will fall under the thrall of whatever belief system or ideology can exert the most force over them — a strategy practically designed by and for the radical Islamist extremists to whom the UN panders in this declaration.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

G-d damn the UN!

Shy Guy on March 3, 2009 at 2:12 PM

UN fn-believable.

TheSitRep on March 3, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Please read my quote (which you quoted) once more, the key operating term there is “preemptively”. On a purely legal basis, US action in 2006 was based on the exact same grounds as Wilders v/s UK this year.

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Except that Wilders did not incite the riot. Critics of his did. You’re talking about a rejected politician who incited a riot himself.

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 2:15 PM

progressoverpeace on March 3, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Thanks for explaining your comments. Well, I agree that the Judeo-Christian values played a very important role in bringing us to this point. But, as societies evolve, their emphasis on religion changes. So, to claim that we have to depend on religion to have a sense of liberty or individualism, is not correct. I think we should have the same set of *laws* and *ethics* irrespective of someone’s religious faith, which is why I mentioned in one of my earlier comments, that I do *not* agree with this resolution by the UN.

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:16 PM

DarkCurrent on March 3, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Thanks, I think I overreacted too.

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:17 PM

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Oh please, it may be legally baseless but it’s the only excuse the authorities can use to stop someone expressing themselves. Why do you get to decide what is “hate speech”? The smartest move of the Muslims is to get opposition to their obnoxious ideology (which an individual can choose) equated with racism (which an individual cannot).

Fortunata on March 3, 2009 at 2:18 PM

certainly they wish it to apply to the defamation of Islam, but would it not also apply to defamation of Jews, Christians, Hindu, Anamists, etc?

No.

The UN has neither the will nor the balls to prosecute Muslims for anything.

And that’s now, when Muslims around the world are relatively weak.

What will the UN do when Muslim states get strong?

NoDonkey on March 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 1:52 PM

At 130 you said:
Constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation *except* where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

Does that mean it’s illegal to incite a riot? (I’m no scholar or lawyer) That’s what it sounds like to me.

My point is…what the UN seems to be trying to do here is outlaw unpopular speech against religion, because followers of a certain religion tend to riot alot when their beliefs are criticized. That’s what it sounds like to me when you strip out all the nuance. This essentially makes criticizing Islam illegal, (to keep them from rioting whenever anyone says something they find offensive)…am I way off base or just reading it wrong? You seem to be saying that this is OK because any speech that criticizes Islam is likely to spark a riot, therefore Criticizing islam should be illegal.

Mord on March 3, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Except that Wilders did not incite the riot. Critics of his did. You’re talking about a rejected politician who incited a riot himself.

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 2:15 PM

If I may clarify, you’re speaking of Narendra Modi. He was largely believed to be complicit with the riots that broke out. They were not arranged against him.

It is the complete opposite with Wilders.

You’re comparing someone who tried to get a crowd riled up with someone who didn’t want a riled crowd, but was given one by his opposition. You do see the difference, I would assume, as you seem intelligent. Any more equivocation and you’re pretty much off into the land of moral relativism.

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 2:20 PM

The UN isn’t looking for intellectual honesty or consistency in this declaration. They are looking for ways to surrender to the radical Muslims who threaten the world…

Bravo, Ed!

Sincerely,

A proud, card-carrying Islamophobe.

awake on March 3, 2009 at 2:23 PM

Mord on March 3, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Actually, the law states that the rioting or lawless action has to be directed *against* the party which was victimized in the speech, so your particular example should not lead to curtailing of the First Amendment.

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:25 PM

progressoverpeace on March 3, 2009 at 1:55 PM

all right, but I wanted oldleprechaun to take a shot at it

runner on March 3, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Hmmmm…. Ok…

got an idea here…

Time to start the High Holy Universal Church of Americanism…

Where the founding Fathers are Prophets… but you can believe in any God you want…

Just have to believe in individual freedom, individual Rights, freedom of speech and religion and conscience…

Then we’re a religion and when they say “Death to America” its RELIGIOUS hate speech, and thus the UN will protect us…

Romeo13 on March 3, 2009 at 2:25 PM

If you can’t respond intelligently to a question, please don’t waste the bandwidth. Here are my points, very clearly spelt out for you:

(1) the ancient society of Greece was very insistent on individualism

(2) it was not based off of Judeo-Christian values.

Tutorial time over. Now, I await your response with bated breath …

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:06 PM

In Sparta, children were taken from their parents, solely for the purpose of military indoctrination.

In Athens, while there was great intellectual freedom, it – unfortunately – didn’t extend to either females, or to the vast network of slaves. In fact, only Athenian males could be citizens. Slavery was a part of every Greek City-State.

So ancient Greece was, by no means … a Utopia of individualism.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 3, 2009 at 2:28 PM

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 2:20 PM

I was making a legal point here, which is: in both cases, the governments were trying to preemptively stop riots. I do agree with your assessment regarding the characters involved: in no way, shape or form, was I trying to equate Wilders (who was trying to make a point) with Modi (a heinous barbaric politician). Hope that clears the confusion.

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:28 PM

But, as societies evolve, their emphasis on religion changes. So, to claim that we have to depend on religion to have a sense of liberty or individualism, is not correct. I think we should have the same set of *laws* and *ethics* irrespective of someone’s religious faith, which is why I mentioned in one of my earlier comments, that I do *not* agree with this resolution by the UN.

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:16 PM

It’s not so much the religion as the culture that the religion fosters. Whether or not one believes in Judaism or Christianity, it is the raising of children with these beliefs and traditions that forms our culture. Judaism and Christianity happen to be individualistic religions that stress progress and growth, and they breed societies with the same characteristics.

This is why I frame the major split in the world, today, as:

Individualism/Guilt/Atonement versus Tribalism/Shame/Revenge

And this all derives from the religious underpinnings of the various societies.

I would note that, in this context, the US has been the most individualistic of all nations, enabled and tempered by the construction of our Constitutional Republic. We have the individual as the fundamental political entity while all others have the party as the fundamental political entity. And that goes a long way to explaining why we have achieved so much more than anyone else, on all fronts.

At least, this is how I view things.

progressoverpeace on March 3, 2009 at 2:28 PM

The day is comming when you will either
Bow to obama
Bow to the UN
or be forced to Fight them both..

I am sorry neither of these cretins are worthy of the offices they now hold..

jcila on March 3, 2009 at 2:29 PM

One might as well call on the followers of Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf” and Nazism to determine what is “hate speech” as to call on the followers of Mohammad, the Koran and Islam to do it.

Same show just under a different tent.

MB4 on March 3, 2009 at 2:31 PM

I was making a legal point here, which is: in both cases, the governments were trying to preemptively stop riots. I do agree with your assessment regarding the characters involved: in no way, shape or form, was I trying to equate Wilders (who was trying to make a point) with Modi (a heinous barbaric politician). Hope that clears the confusion.

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Okay, then isn’t refusing entrance to Wilders effectively giving into the mob, rather than policing it? By the US blocking Modi, they were preventing a person who had an interest in creating an uncontrollable situation. Wilders didn’t. Is England going to reject anyone who has serious opposition within their borders? That just confirms that England has ultimately surrendered their government policy to violent rioters and mobs.

It’s not Wilders’ speech that causes these incidents; it’s the mob reaction that causes an incident.

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 2:31 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on March 3, 2009 at 2:28 PM

OK, great opening. When it says “Thou shalt not kill thy neighbor” in the Old Testament, it means only Jewish neighbors. As for heathens :

They should be utterly destroyed and should receive no mercy but be exterminated, as the Lord commanded Moses . . . Utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling (Joshua 11:20 . . . First Samuel 15:3).

So, even in the Bible, individual rights do not extend to everyone (just like in ancient Greece, they did not extend to women and slaves).

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:32 PM

progressoverpeace on March 3, 2009 at 1:55 PM

all right, but I wanted oldleprechaun to take a shot at it

runner on March 3, 2009 at 2:25 PM

I hear you, runner. But from DarkCurrent and Montana’s simultaneous responses (along with mine), it looks like lots of us were thinking the same thing. Maybe oldleprechaun still has something to add?

progressoverpeace on March 3, 2009 at 2:32 PM

It’s way worse than you express, Ed, imho.
“Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness”, is being attacked by the New Liberal Fascists who want to globalize “the greater good”.
Just say, “No.”

Randy

williars on March 3, 2009 at 2:32 PM

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor SODOMITES, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1Co 6:9-10)

Are they gonna protect that for me?

Grafted on March 3, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Are there any adults left anywhere? Hello…echo…chirps

Fuquay Steve on March 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM

More surrender of the West’s intellectual crown jewels.

Well, why not?

With the exception of Hitchens, Styen and a few others, it seems like the West has already surrendered the “family jewels”.

Bruno Strozek on March 3, 2009 at 2:36 PM

It’s not Wilders’ speech that causes these incidents; it’s the mob reaction that causes an incident.

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 2:31 PM

As I have mentioned before, if Wilders were an American citizen, he could not have been prosecuted under First Amendment, since the so-called victims of his speech were not the victims of a riot, but the rioters themselves.

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:36 PM

progressoverpeace on March 3, 2009 at 2:32 PM

I do not disagree that a lot of what we define as democratic principals – life, liberty, pursuit of happiness stem from the Judeo-Christian tenets.

runner on March 3, 2009 at 2:36 PM

Grafted on March 3, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Covetus? I’m screwed then.

When I see people getting massive frame rates with a certain video card, I covet it. Then I buy it.

Coveting is the essence of consumer demand.

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 2:37 PM

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 2:37 PM

Are you an avid gamer, by any chance?

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:38 PM

As I have mentioned before, if Wilders were an American citizen, he could not have been prosecuted under First Amendment, since the so-called victims of his speech were not the victims of a riot, but the rioters themselves.

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:36 PM

You totally avoided my point. Is England going to reject any speaker who has serious opposition within their borders, in effect punishing the speaker for the actions of those who oppose them?

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 2:39 PM

Are you an avid gamer, by any chance?

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:38 PM

I’m an avid pwner, thank you very much.

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 2:39 PM

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 2:39 PM

That’s for England to decide, I certainly hope they side with strong First Amendment protections that we have.

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:40 PM

UN must leave the United States. We should not host such a corrupt and unethical organizations or continue to give it any credibility. The only credibility that organization has is because of the USA. Other nations ignore sanctions with impunity until WE decide it’s time to kick butt.

It must go. REVOLUTION.

timajin on March 3, 2009 at 2:41 PM

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:25 PM

I think I understand, thanks. Speech that starts violence against the group the speech is about. For example, I stand on a street-corner and give a speech that encourages people to attack a group or act unlawfully would be illegal, but it’s not illegal to say something that would cause people to become violent towards ME.

That still leaves a bit of a problem. Muslims are getting violent when anyone criticizes their religion. Nobody is asking them to riot or act unlawfully, they are doing it because they want someone to shut up. This UN thing seems to me like it’s aimed at shutting up critics of any religion and making it illegal, just to keep certain groups from acting up in reaction to it. Criticizing islam isn’t in any way calling for violence or unlawfulness. The violence comes FROM the muslims, the speech isn’t directing violence TOWARDS them.

Mord on March 3, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Mord on March 3, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Absolutely – which is why I have been saying from the beginning that I oppose this UN resolution.

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:42 PM

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 2:39 PM

Cool. I have written games at one point of time in my career.

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:43 PM

That’s for England to decide, I certainly hope they side with strong First Amendment protections that we have.

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Agreed, but fat chance. If that had any real interest in protecting their freedoms, they would be arresting and/or deporting these disgusting imams at Green Lane and other mosques (read: jihad recruitment centers) throughout the country, after the undercover crews found them preaching radical Islam. Instead, they have abdicated and allowed Muslim-dominated communities to adopt Sharia court systems that override the British courts. They’re finished unless they take a real sharp turn.

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 2:45 PM

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Well, I believe I did read (in HA itself) that UK deported one Imam last month. All nations should have one set of laws for people of all cast, creed, race or religion : is that too much to ask? The creation of multiple standards for religions has screwed the Indian society, IMO.

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:48 PM

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:42 PM

great, thanks for the explanation. I wasn’t sure what you meant at first, heh.

Mord on March 3, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Actually, the law states that the rioting or lawless action has to be directed *against* the party which was victimized in the speech, so your particular example should not lead to curtailing of the First Amendment.

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Huh? If I start a prison riot and say let’s get all the guards, I don’t get a pass if only prisoners or visitors are attacked.

Blake on March 3, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Well, I believe I did read (in HA itself) that UK deported one Imam last month. All nations should have one set of laws for people of all cast, creed, race or religion : is that too much to ask? The creation of multiple standards for religions has screwed the Indian society, IMO.

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:48 PM

You have to be willing to enforce the laws, particularly against those who have the most to lose through said enforcement. The UK hasn’t had any guts in a long time.

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 2:55 PM

They should be utterly destroyed and should receive no mercy but be exterminated, as the Lord commanded Moses . . . Utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling (Joshua 11:20 . . . First Samuel 15:3).

So, even in the Bible, individual rights do not extend to everyone (just like in ancient Greece, they did not extend to women and slaves).

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Simple exercise here:

Part A: How long has it been since the above passage was preached to the masses as a call for action?

Part B: How long has it been since Allah’s commandments to kill infidels was heard in a Mosque?

Finding: The answer to part A is measured in centuries, while part B is measured in minutes.

BobMbx on March 3, 2009 at 2:55 PM

BobMbx on March 3, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Please read the *context* of my quote. I meant this as a response to someone who claimed that ancient Greeks did not exercise their laws for *everyone*, and I wanted to show that even Christians did not, at some point of time in history. That had nothing to do with radical Islam, at all.

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Oh look at this. Looks to me as if finally the sleeping giant is stirring.

Fortunata on March 3, 2009 at 3:15 PM

What will the UN do when Muslim states get strong?

NoDonkey on March 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM

Also, what will the UN do when the West’s population is overtaken by Muslims in Europe who are “breeding like mosquitoes”. I like Mark Steyn, but his writing is part of why I don’t sleep at night.

Laura in Maryland on March 3, 2009 at 3:15 PM

We can’t afford the UN anymore. Time to knock out that line item.

danking70 on March 3, 2009 at 3:15 PM

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 3:11 PM

You misquoted it.

Otis B on March 3, 2009 at 3:17 PM

OK, great opening. When it says “Thou shalt not kill thy neighbor” in the Old Testament, it means only Jewish neighbors. As for heathens :

They should be utterly destroyed and should receive no mercy but be exterminated, as the Lord commanded Moses . . . Utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling (Joshua 11:20 . . . First Samuel 15:3).

So, even in the Bible, individual rights do not extend to everyone (just like in ancient Greece, they did not extend to women and slaves).

peter_griffin on March 3, 2009 at 2:32 PM

I’m afraid that you’ve missed your own point, to wit:

(1) the ancient society of Greece was very insistent on individualism.

As I set forth; clearly, it was not.

The fact remains that, the American Revolution was based upon the concept that … “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And that such things are sought “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, …” [Please see the Declaration of the United States of America]. These were references to the Christian God, as per the multitude of writings from the Founding Fathers.

Said “Creator” and said “divine Providence” was the God of the Old and New Testament. And said “rights” and “liberties” were those granted us from God and not from Man or Government.

As for your reference to the Old Testament, please read the New Testament, wherein Jesus said, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” [Matthew 22:39]. Please, also, see Galatians 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Please, also, see Philemon 16, wherein Paul, writing to the slaveowner, Philemon, in reference to the runaway slave, Onesimus, told Philemon to “receive him” … “Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved …” and to “receive him as myself.” [17].

So, you see, these teachings … starting with the demand to “love thy neighbor as thyself” sought to eliminate, and did eliminate, the concept of slavery throughout the Christian world. Who, indeed, could enslave one who was loved as a brother?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 3, 2009 at 3:18 PM

“That just confirms that England has ultimately surrendered their government policy to violent rioters and mobs.”

It is so bad in the UK now that they have have an official policy of declaring terrorist acts by Muslims to be unIslamic.

davod on March 3, 2009 at 3:25 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on March 3, 2009 at 3:18 PM

I was gonna go with Matthew 5, and loving your enemies, but I like what you wrote here.

Otis B on March 3, 2009 at 3:27 PM

It is so bad in the UK now that they have have an official policy of declaring terrorist acts by Muslims to be unIslamic.

By authority on Islam, the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Has he achieved his goal of personally fellating every Muslim male in the UK?

NoDonkey on March 3, 2009 at 3:33 PM

Get the US out of the UN, then get the UN the hell out of the US.

JohnGalt23 on March 3, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Get the US out of the UN, then get the UN the hell out of the US.

JohnGalt23 on March 3, 2009 at 3:35 PM

+100. I just hope it won’t take another world war to send it the way of the League of Nations.

Fortunata on March 3, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Push the UN into the bay.

Maxx on March 3, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Letterman is on my boycott list, so I have to ask, does anyone know if he still plays “Will it Float?”

Laura in Maryland on March 3, 2009 at 3:48 PM

I’m a Christian, and therefore believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. The Muslim religion denies this. This is in direct contradiction to the beliefs of myself and millions of other Christians. Furthermore, my feelings are hurt.

Who do I/we talk to at the UN to press charges?

tgharris on March 3, 2009 at 4:04 PM

What does that make the ancient society of Greece?

Well, if I recall, ancient Greece did not NOT extend individual rights to a large segment of it’s population. Slaves were, obviously property, as were women, for all intent and purpose. Government was an aristocratic (from aristoi’ or “best people”) oligarchy (rule by few.) Much the way contemporary liberals view themselves. This devolved into a “democracy”. “Democracy” being “majority rule”, the same as lynch mob.

If you were part of the ruling class, life was good. Elsewhere, not so much.

oldleprechaun on March 3, 2009 at 4:41 PM

The UN is run by third world thugs. Any credibility they had, ceased to exist many years ago. I do hope the U.S eventually bails out. What’s it take, an act of Congress?

GFW on March 3, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Meet the new boss

moxie_neanderthal on March 3, 2009 at 5:47 PM

Whenever anyone speaks about international law — I think of outrages like this.

cruadin on March 3, 2009 at 6:18 PM

***
The “United Nations” are not. They are a group of shameless self serving thieves and bigots who rob, rape, and enrich themselves at the expense of both the poor and the rich.
***
The U.N. has failed as miserably as it’s predecessor the “League of Nations” did. Only U.S.A. military power and money have provided freedom and liberty to people in the 60 years or so of U.N. existence.
***
Their are no benefits to acting with the U.N. scam in any military operation. It only costs more in money and lives lost to “team up” with an impotent and America hating organization.
***
Eliminate all U.S.A. funding to this dysfunctional organization. Expel all their “diplomats”. Cut off that part of New York City land that has the U.N. building on it. And tow the land and building to Europe somewhere where they can totally fund it–without the U.S.A. I suggest Paris, France, as the proper place for the new U.N. minus U.S.A. It will fit right in there.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on March 3, 2009 at 6:49 PM

Does anyone know more about the Ahmadi Muslims Hitch is referring to? The research I did indicates their belief that Jihad is outdated, and that peaceful propagation of Islam is the proper way.

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 7:00 PM

We all know that while Obama is busy agreeing to pay the world’s bills today… the UN isn’t going anywhere! Dang it!

I wish we could get the UN to outlaw violence as a reaction when people criticize Islam. Now that would be the correct kind of law. Outlaw violence not words.

But no, everything is backwards in our world today.

petunia on March 3, 2009 at 7:08 PM

Since the UN has become the International House of Islam (IHOY), then the next logical step is to criminalize criticism of the UN itself. This organization needs to relocate to its rightful location, somewhere between Medina and Mecca.

EMD on March 3, 2009 at 8:12 PM

America!!!

Please throw the UN out .. let them find a haven with one of their tin pot dictators.. Is there a more corrupt, and corrupted organization in the world..

I challenge any UN supporter to identify the last great success of the UN..

Darfur ?……..nope
Rahwanda? .. .. nope
Food for Oil? . nope
Durbin? ……. nope
The ME? ……. nope

Now this .. the vilest regimes claiming their right to Sharia, and all the human rights abuses that entails, and the UN caves ..

Time for the Western Democracies to leave the UN ..

dugbru on March 3, 2009 at 8:24 PM

rocketman on March 3, 2009 at 6:49 PM

I agree.

silenced majority on March 3, 2009 at 8:41 PM

Of course, I am against such a resolution. Sad thing is, Islam is the culprit, yet watch the bad atheists use it to trash Christianity. They ignore that the Cross stands for the freedom that inspired the formation of America.

apacalyps on March 3, 2009 at 8:53 PM

UN-ctious
UN-conscious
UN-historical
UN-fathomable
UN-conscionable

profitsbeard on March 3, 2009 at 9:36 PM

Sadly, it WILL take a war to change things. We don’t like to prevent cancer. We like to try to cure it.

Soon Israel will have to attack Iran because of the nukes and the crap will hit the fan.

All in the name of mythology. And when the war really gets going there will be plenty of people praying to no one, all the while not admitting that that behavior is why the war rages in the first place.

deewhybee on March 3, 2009 at 10:33 PM

“By authority on Islam, the Archbishop of Canterbury?”

I was not joking. It is UK Government policy to declare Mulsim terrorism to be un-Islamic.

davod on March 4, 2009 at 6:50 AM

Seeking moral guidance from the UN can only happen through utter ignorance or willful neglect of its true nature.

UN’s real name is UND, United Nations and Dictators.

NORUK on March 4, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Who thinks that the UN will ever stand up for people badmouthing Christianity?

LOL, I think we all know the answer to that one.

jeffn21 on March 4, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Comment pages: 1 2