The Defamation of Religions at the U.N.

[salida]

Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236764174608&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
and www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/bg2206.cfm

This is extremely horrible if this passes. It muzzles people and their free speech rights in general. I have christian beliefs but if a movie comes out like the Last Temptation of Christ (I just don't watch it even though this movie makes me vomit). It outright mocks the christian God. Well, this defamation of religions is against free speech period - and it will be the "world norm". The world will become a police state - and its first attack is having free speech for or against religion. Yes, the islamic religion started it because they are "offended" as some cartoonist drew a picture. Their feelings get very very easily hurt it seems.

This isn't good for the U.S. as its outright against our Constitition. Plus, it will hurt the world and be a police state oppression.

***Please contact your representatives, senators and congressmen on this - this is very creepy if this occurs. Prayers are needed by christians.

 

[allhart]

And if they put into a treaty form with the U.S. of America the next president can't change it. It is written and binding in a treaty. For a one world order......

 

[The Nihilist]

Calm down. It'll never happen. Besides, this is the United States, what do we care about U.N. resolutions?

 

[Maverick3000]

1.) This is a old resolution that has been kicked around several committees before heading into the General Assembly

2.) General Assembly Resolutions have no binding whatsoever. It has no effect on US law or anything. Most US media coverage has been terrible on this issue due to ignorance on how the UN works. The UN can't force the US to do anything, nor can they put it in "treaty" form and make the US sign it. Please learn about international law before you jump to conclusions on this stuff.

 

[Staccato]

I thought it was quite amusing that Saudi Arabia was one of the biggest pushers for this directive but, as far as I know, they voted against, and have done exceptionally little to implement, the Universal Delcaration of Human Rights. Go figure.

In the US you have nothing to worry about. In the UK this is getting towards a reality already, so I'm slightly more concerned.

 

[DaisyDay]

Calm down. It'll never happen. Besides, this is the United States, what do we care about U.N. resolutions?

Oh, they come in handy as justification, if you interpret them just right, for invading oil-rich countries.

Please learn about international law before you jump to conclusions on this stuff.

Way to take all the fun out of a rant, Maverick.

 

[Billnew]

1.) This is a old resolution that has been kicked around several committees before heading into the General Assembly

2.) General Assembly Resolutions have no binding whatsoever. It has no effect on US law or anything. Most US media coverage has been terrible on this issue due to ignorance on how the UN works. The UN can't force the US to do anything, nor can they put it in "treaty" form and make the US sign it. Please learn about international law before you jump to conclusions on this stuff.

As we saw with Iraq, they have no power. The UN can make treatys, the UN can make resolutions, but the UN can not make world laws. The USA Congress will have to vote on them, and have a 2/3 majority to pass. Not sure that any treaty that goes against the Constitution can be enforced.

In 1999, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights adopted a resolution titled "Defamation of Religions" that expressed concern over the "negative stereotyping of religions" and "that Islam is fre­quently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and with terrorism."[1]

loved this part. compile all the terrorist activitys in the world, and compile the religions, Which religion is most comon in terror?
Now HUman rights violations, who is most comon to kill women and daughters, so called honor killings? Who lets bands of men rove around and beat, attack, even rape and drag them to a religious court(even if they aren't that religion.) to be scourged, beaten or killed for their "crimes". More likely to be overbearing goverments, enforcing strict laws on conduct and keeping the classes seperate?
Where the crime of a woman raped by 3 men is the on the womans, even if the men bragged about it.(because there wasn't 7 men observing the activity, that would testify to the facts.)

Yea, Muslim's are wrongly associated. Its time the UN get a backbone and stand up to the terrorist nations, stop trying to tiptoe around them so they won't be the next target. Terror plays the victim well, they hide in civilian popultaion, and attack from the dark, and when a goverment attacks them, they display all the dead civilians like little trophys for their cause. The middle east isn't tougher then anyone else, because they can
sneak up and hurt innocent people, they are uncivilized. Many other cultures have been through these times, and have moved on. When bullys are ignored, they win, when bullys are stood up to, they are beat down. We have ignored even bowed down to the bullys, its time to stand up and tell them to keep thier violence out of the civilized world.

 

[salida]

We don't care in the U.S. - BUT if we don't contact our politicians and be the loudest squeaky wheel overwhelmingly in the world it will be right in front of us and there is nothing we can do about it. This isn't a new thing - this is how rights were taken away in socialist countries. They said "oh, this won't happen, no way" and were continually wrong. There are organizations fighting this but this almost got passed! The agenda is to get a "one world religion" and I'm sure there will be persecution that we can't even image in this country. I may be part of it. Its underground church time therefore.

It also reminds me of the titanic - they thought the ship would never sink but it did. I'm not a chicken little - but reality is reality.

 

[salida]

Maverick3000-

I keep in contact with certain organizations that are credible that fight these type of things; they DO know how the U.N. is working now on this particular issue. They are in the legal profession Mr. Maverick. They are very very sincere and love our country. I'm aware that these things have been kicked around. When a person takes the attitude, "don't worry be happy" this is when trouble begins. Our towers got attacked and no paid any serious attention until they fell down.

So in the UK this is already happening? Interesting. Did they have a "don't worry be happy" mentality? Is the snake of oppression slowly getting them? All is well with our hands are folded on our couches watching our t.v.'s. - then disaster strikes. The rich and powerful are becoming control freaks - its a false sense of security. Absolute power = absolute corruption - nothing new.

Yes, they are wrongly associated with human rights. This is part their jihad agenda- putting the "human rights" label on it. And they are skilled at stealing, killing and destroying for their ideology - yes, human rights as long as one is dead if your not one of them.

 

[MerchantofMenace]

In 1999, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights adopted a resolution titled "Defamation of Religions" that expressed concern over the "negative stereotyping of religions" and "that Islam is fre­quently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and with terrorism."[1]

Gee. Where would anyone get a crazy idea like that?

 

[Maverick3000]

As we saw with Iraq, they have no power. The UN can make treatys,

The United Nations cannot even make treaties, though they can recommend and call upon a conference to make them but that is it. Treaties can only be created by actual "actors" which the United Nations isn't.

I keep in contact with certain organizations that are credible that fight these type of things; they DO know how the U.N. is working now on this particular issue.

I question the credibility of any organization on International Legal issues that think a non-Security Council resolution in the United Nations actually has an impact on US law or policy. This is more of a protest document then anything of true substance or impact.

 

[Kinkoman]

This is why those idiots are never to be trusted.

 

[RecentConvert]

I'm (pleasantly) surprised that no one here is supporting this resolution. After all, making Defamation of Religion a crime would mean that no one could defame your religion...

 

[romanov]

Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236764174608&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
and www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/bg2206.cfm

This is extremely horrible if this passes. It muzzles people and their free speech rights in general. I have christian beliefs but if a movie comes out like the Last Temptation of Christ (I just don't watch it even though this movie makes me vomit). It outright mocks the christian God. Well, this defamation of religions is against free speech period - and it will be the "world norm". The world will become a police state - and its first attack is having free speech for or against religion. Yes, the islamic religion started it because they are "offended" as some cartoonist drew a picture. Their feelings get very very easily hurt it seems.

This isn't good for the U.S. as its outright against our Constitition. Plus, it will hurt the world and be a police state oppression.

***Please contact your representatives, senators and congressmen on this - this is very creepy if this occurs. Prayers are needed by christians.

Good reason to push for the Bricker Amendment.

Note; it is not often that I use Wikipedi. But this definition is consistent with what I know to be true.

 

[Tenka]

I'm (pleasantly) surprised that no one here is supporting this resolution.

Australia still has blasphemy laws and probably many US states do also, but we just ignore them these days.

 

[XTE]

And if they put into a treaty form with the U.S. of America the next president can't change it. It is written and binding in a treaty. For a one world order......

This simply isn't true.... Whoever told you this isn't very knowledgeable.

Bush did away with several treaties, didn't he? Now how could he have done that if what you say is true? You've been called on this lie a couple of times already, I wish you would stop using it and pretending no one has told you different.

You can repeat One World Order all day, but don't use that lie to bolster your fear-mongering...

 

[romanov]

This simply isn't true.... Whoever told you this isn't very knowledgeable.

Bush did away with several treaties, didn't he? Now how could he have done that if what you say is true? You've been called on this lie a couple of times already, I wish you would stop using it and pretending no one has told you different.

You can repeat One World Order all day, but don't use that lie to bolster your fear-mongering...

All I know of is two treaties he did not sign. Congress did not approve them either. If you know of any treaties he broke you need to post them.

 

[Gracchus]

And if they put into a treaty form with the U.S. of America the next president can't change it. It is written and binding in a treaty. For a one world order......

Right, so the Black Hills still belong to the Dakota as guaranteed by treaty.

A treaty is valid only as long as either side has the will and the firepower to enforce it.

 

[allhart]

Right, so the Black Hills still belong to the Dakota as guaranteed by treaty.

A treaty is valid only as long as either side has the will and the firepower to enforce it.

I hear ya. But do you think that a one world treaty would have a more broader scope or implication /effect? Liberty is under attack!

 

[Gracchus]

I hear ya. But do you think that a one world treaty would have a more broader scope or implication /effect? Liberty is under attack!

All law is an infringement of liberty. We give up some liberties to obtain others. That is just the way it is.

If history teaches us anything it is that most folks would rather be fed and warm than free. Revolutions happen when people are hungry and cold.

After all, "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."