This law would send every atheist to jail! Period!

*law

Adding video to channels (Law) - requested by Sagemind.

This is, of course, outrageous. And if it really does pass, then it will be the death knell of UN. I know I won't follow any such law. I'd rather go to jail instead.

I dislike the way they keep placing the blame for this on the UN itself. It's a powerful block of fifty or so islamic nations with a very specific agenda, not the international organization as a whole.

They keep saying "the UN is doing this" and "the UN is doing that" as if we weren't even a damn member! It's misleading to paint the entire organization as somehow behind this absurd proposal when the point of this story should be that the islamic nations can form a formidable political front in the international community.

The United States is THE founding member of the United Nations. The UN has always been an American organization in design, principles, and execution. The fact that most Americans today address it with open contempt shouldn't be an irony lost to anyone.

There's a growing tendency to demonize the UN, and the organization has many faults, but it seems like everyone who advocates dismantling it doesn't even suggest an international body to replace it.

As if an international body isn't absolutely evident, obvious, and necessary.

>> ^gwiz665:
This is, of course, outrageous. And if it really does pass, then it will be the death knell of UN. I know I won't follow any such law. I'd rather go to jail instead.


Let's be clear...the UN does not, and can not pass "laws". At most, they can propose treaties that member nations can sign, or not.

As should be crystal clear after the last eight years, the UN does not supercede any national government.

As Stormsinger said, and the Lou Dobbs show decided not to say, for a resolution to be binding on a country then that country has to agree on it. The misleading perception this show gave is that it is an international law overriding the laws of a nation state. Bad reporting. And Hitchens went off the subject of the law completely. Anyway. I guess the people on the show got a chance to speak of the agendas they had on their mind at the time.

can i start the flamewar, please?

*quality

This is seems to me somewhat similar to governments classifying documents that they know will get them in trouble. I think the advocates of this resolution know that criticism for religion - any religion - is very often warranted, but is obviously inconvenient to them. This law will not be accepted. I have faith in humanity that this will not come to pass in any respectable democratic country. If it does.. my faith will dwindle. I'd bet Scientology would love to see this adopted in countries where they are located.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by EndAll.

One, two, three, four,
I declare a flame war!

>> ^marinara:
can i start the flamewar, please?

Don't stress America you can just do what you do with every other UN resolution

this makes me so fucking angry

In my relgoin its important that women are burnt to death when they get to 32, this alowes them to assend to hevean. if you disagree or aregue against my religouse belives , then i will sue you for religouse hatrid. Anny comment relating to my religion is punishable by death in my religion law and I find everything other than my central doctrine of burning women offensive.

Wait.

When was the last time anyone listened to anything the UN said?

See Israel/Palestine resolutions of the last ohhh 60 fucking years.

This just goes to show it's no accident the UN doesn't have legislative powers. You can't pass decrees by majority rule on how people should behave in a commúnity whose members often have diametrically opposed interests. That would be like... Hm, it occurs to me that would be rather like any modern democratic nation, actually.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Wait.
When was the last time anyone listened to anything the UN said?
See Israel/Palestine resolutions of the last ohhh 60 fucking years.

Or as Yes Minister calls it, Diplomacy.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Appalling-Cynicism-Or-Diplomacy-as-the-British-call-it 1:16 and beyond.

Call me wathever you want, but within the confines of the UN assembly, I find it fair to restrain the use of religion-based verbal attacks. It's a place for diplomacy, aren't these guys supposed to work on achieving peace in the world?

And hey, in our Canadian parliament, MPs arent allowed to use a long list of words and insults, and I don't think our democracy is scorched by these limitations.

Incredible. I find it funny that this UN resolution is being used as propaganda by the religious right youtubers, NewChristianSoldiers, to rail against Obama, when it more accurately reflects the intolerance of the religious right in our country.

I'll support the resolution to ban criticism of religion on the condition that they add a counter-resolution banning religious people from criticizing anybody else.

Speech is too sacred. This is another reason I think the UN is a bad idea. Why can't nations just be sovereign and leave it at that?

Bad idea in all ways for all people everywhere.

The Lou Dobbs School of Polling is awesome.

>> ^blankfist:
Speech is too sacred. This is another reason I think the UN is a bad idea. Why can't nations just be sovereign and leave it at that?


Because they can't.

While the report says the resolution is being pushed by Islamic interests, the actually wording looks to 'protect' all religions and all overly sensitive wussbag followers.

So, if this resolution actually resulted in a law AND were actually enforced fairly, I imagine everyone in the world would be arrested in about 10sec flat... There isn't a religious person or atheist in the world who hasn't criticized one religion or another. Save, perhaps, a few permanently high folks who just 'need more pizza maaaan'.

In away I'm happy this is being pushed by Islamic interested because it means the US will oppose it and hopefully stand up for free speech. I do however wonder what the reaction would have been had it been a resolution about criticizing Christianity or Judaism. I hope the US's reaction would be an equal amount of outrage.

Turn it back on them, Look at the definition of Religion:

re⋅li⋅gion
  /rɪˈlɪdʒən/

–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.


Through that entire definition, Athiestic views on the subject would be protected, too.
If this passes, no more would Atheists get ragged on by any other type of religious nut because it's illegal. True, to gain that you'd have to give up disproving other religions.. but you could do it so much more tastefully instead.

Instead of going to a christian and saying "Your religion sucks and it's false, here's proof" release it as more information to the Atheist people, and common knowledge. Christians then can't dispute it or else they go to jail.

This being said, I hope this is never even a remote reality in the states or canada, but on the seriously small chance that it ever does happen.. least there's a technicaly up side to it.

gather round children . .. tune in, turn on, drop out.

This was posted on YouTube on February 26, 2009. Old news, anything happened with this?

Lou Dobbs busy rabble rousing again. I like the weasel words "could be" and such. He's like a non-cartoon version of Glenn Beck (or Glenn is the cartoon version of Dobbs, take your pick).

They even say in the article that the specifics of the laws are up to each member country and most places (including the US) defamation requires knowingly providing false information.

Aside from which if "NCIS Los Angeles" wants to investigate terrorists they can just avoid mentioning the religion all together and just let people ASSUME the terrorists are Muslims or they can make up a fake religion, just as they have to make up fake Corporations on TV now to avoid lawsuits. I really don't see how that should bother anyone, giving religion the same protections against defamation as companies.

All that said, I'm an atheist and I think all religions are stupid so I'm pretty unbiased on the subject.

UN=rendered irrelevant

Fuck you. FUCK YOU! I will not give up my right to free speech!

THAT IS GODDAMN UNCONSTITUTIONAL! JUST THE THOUGHT OF IT!!!!!

FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU!

*I'M JUMPING UP AND DOWN ON MY KEYBOARD!*



*Whoooossaaaaaa Whooossssaaaaaa*

Now I remember, what are they going to do, sanction us?

^Don't take your guns to town, son, leave your guns at home, boy, don't take your guns to town.♫

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Freedom-Under-Fire-U-N-Anti-Blasphemy-Resolution

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by messenger. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.