PDA

View Full Version : UN Conssidering making blasphemy against religion illegal


Nate
02-27-2009, 09:16 PM
The UN is considering a binding resolution to make speech against religion illegal among member states:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRb2OKPBswM
(Yes, Lou Dobbs is a blathering idiot, but Hitchens makes some good points.)

I will be interested to hear what the UN Plaza guys have to say on this.

AemJeff
02-27-2009, 09:35 PM
The UN is considering a binding resolution to make speech against religion illegal among member states:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRb2OKPBswM
(Yes, Lou Dobbs is a blathering idiot, but Hitchens makes some good points.)

I will be interested to hear what the UN Plaza guys have to say on this.

I don't know enough about UN rules to know whether this resolution is subject to a Security Council veto. If it is, a big test of the Obamoids for me is going to be if they have the balls to use it in case this piece of excrement passes a General Assembly vote.

Ocean
02-27-2009, 09:47 PM
I don't know enough about UN rules to know whether this resolution is subject to a Security Council veto. If it is, a big test of the Obamoids for me is going to be if they have the balls to use it in case this piece of excrement passes a General Assembly vote.

Why do you think the UN could possibly want to pass that kind of resolution?

TwinSwords
02-27-2009, 10:00 PM
This has been an object of hysteria on the far right for the last couple of days; I think the fears are mostly irrational. There is no way (none, zilch, zippo) that this is going to have ANY effect on American law or in any way trump the First Amendment. There is simply no way the American public would stand for it.

Any clear thinking person can see that in fact the exact opposite would occur: If there were any UN attempt to restrict American free speech, there would be an anti-Islam backlash of epic proportions.

BTW: Thanks for dredging up a video from a conspiracy nut who posts comments like the following on his page:

"These bitches need to learn, it doesn't matter what they do or what they say, it doesn't matter what laws they pass or people they threaten, I will always say "FUCK ISLAM AND FUCK THEIR SKINNY BEARDED CHILD FUCKING PROPHET."

bjkeefe
02-27-2009, 10:02 PM
The UN is considering a binding resolution to make speech against religion illegal among member states:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRb2OKPBswM
(Yes, Lou Dobbs is a blathering idiot, but Hitchens makes some good points.)

I will be interested to hear what the UN Plaza guys have to say on this.

A couple of weeks ago, I linked to a couple of fine pieces by Johann Hari (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/freedom-of-speech-means-especially.html) that I believe addresses this same issue. Definitely worth reading.

AemJeff
02-27-2009, 10:18 PM
Why do you think the UN could possibly want to pass that kind of resolution?

It looks like it has been passed. It's really hard to source this in US media but here's the gist (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9b8e3a6d-795d-440f-a5de-6ff6e78c78d5). (h/t (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/talk_fast_we_might_be_criminal.php))

Ocean
02-27-2009, 10:37 PM
It looks like it has been passed. It's really hard to source this in US media but here's the gist (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9b8e3a6d-795d-440f-a5de-6ff6e78c78d5). (h/t (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/talk_fast_we_might_be_criminal.php))

Thank you for the link.

bjkeefe
02-27-2009, 11:16 PM
This has been an object of hysteria on the far right for the last couple of days; I think the fears are mostly irrational. There is no way (none, zilch, zippo) that this is going to have ANY effect on American law or in any way trump the First Amendment. There is simply no way the American public would stand for it.

I disagree. We (you and I, as well as "we the United States") have global concerns and interests, and letting blasphemy become a crime elsewhere in the world hurts us, our friends, and decent people everywhere.

Any clear thinking person can see that in fact the exact opposite would occur: If there were any UN attempt to restrict American free speech, there would be an anti-Islam backlash of epic proportions.

That's a good argument for opposing the UN resolution in the first place.

BTW: Thanks for dredging up a video from a conspiracy nut who posts comments like the following on his page:

It's really sad that the far right is taking charge on this. As I noted in a blog post about Geert Wilders (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/strange-bedfellows.html), Memeorandum showed only right-wing blogs talking about the issue. There is something to be concerned about here, as far as setting back liberal objectives goes -- giving the wingnuts license to indulge their hysterical anti-Muslim phobias chief among them.

Protecting free speech and not letting religion gain political clout are most definitely liberal goals. As I said in the post, I was discouraged that no lefties seemed to be discussing the Wilders issue, and I am saddened that they apparently are not weighing in on this UN resolution issue, either. It's a big mistake, both considering our goals and in the political sense of letting the far right define how these things are opposed.

I think some liberals are going too far in favoring multiculturalism or blind tolerance with regard to these demands by certain Islamic leaders.

More on this here (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/more-hammering-on-theme.html) and here (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/otm-reacts-to-geert-wilders-news.html).

AemJeff
02-27-2009, 11:21 PM
...

Right on, Brendan.

TwinSwords
02-28-2009, 12:11 AM
I agree that the resolution is terrible.

But it's wholly disingenuous of Dobbs and the far right to suggest there is any chance that it will ever be "a crime in the United States ... to criticize religion." That is NEVER going to happen. There are certain rubicons that Americans will not cross. Only a lunatic would fear that criticism of Islam could ever be outlawed in the United States. Bashing Islam is practically sport in the United States; Americans would give up beef and apple pie as soon as bashing Islam.

The only real effect of this resolution will be the opposite of its authoritarian authors' intent: they will either be ignored, or generate a backlash counterproductive to their intent in passing it.

TwinSwords
02-28-2009, 12:14 AM
That's a good argument for opposing the UN resolution in the first place.

As I do.

And it's also a good argument for:

(1) Not being terribly worried about it.

(2) Welcoming the challenge, if you're an athiest hostile to religion or a civil libertarian anxious to expand the boundaries of free speech; because the effect of this resolution will be precisely the opposite of its authors' intent.


Protecting free speech and not letting religion gain political clout are most definitely liberal goals.
Well said.

The good news is that religion, by this act, is hurting its clout. People throughout the West will not take kindly to Arab states dictating to the terms of our discourse. Free speech advocates should, frankly, be happy that this gauntlet was thrown down.

AemJeff
02-28-2009, 12:30 AM
I agree that the resolution is terrible.

But it's wholly disingenuous of Dobbs and the far right to suggest there is any chance that it will ever be "a crime in the United States ... to criticize religion." ...
That is definitely true.


The only real effect of this resolution will be the opposite of its authoritarian authors' intent: they will either be ignored, or generate a backlash counterproductive to their intent in passing it.

I don't believe this. There are certainly people serving jail time now for blasphemy all over the world. Pakistan has especially aggressive laws (http://www.iheu.org/node/1304), e.g., as does Iran. This resolution provides legitimacy to these laws and will inevitably increase the number of people jailed for crimes of conscience.

TwinSwords
02-28-2009, 12:43 AM
I don't believe this. There are certainly people serving jail time now for blasphemy all over the world. Pakistan has especially aggressive laws (http://www.iheu.org/node/1304), e.g., as does Iran. This resolution provides legitimacy to these laws and will inevitably increase the number of people jailed for crimes of conscience.

I agree that in some borderline countries, this could help push the society towards greater authoritarianism. Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc., are probably a lost cause for religious freedom or free speech anyway, with or without this resolution.

The biggest concern, as you suggest, is in those countries which today are in the middle ground between the robust free speech norms of the West and the hostility to free minds one finds in, e.g., most Islamic nations. In those places, we should be concerned about this resolution's impact.

Has anyone actually read the text of the resolution? I have not.

AemJeff
02-28-2009, 01:00 AM
I can't find the text anywhere. I did find this (http://www.un.org/documents/resga.htm), and it may eventually turn up there.

pampl
02-28-2009, 02:13 AM
I'm pretty sure this is the same non-binding resolution that Islamic countries have rammed through every year since 1990. They've made noise this year about wanting it to be binding, but that's part of the yearly tradition too. The big news was apparently last year when they charged the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights (I think I've got that title right) to investigate whether freedom of speech is being "abused" to dis Islam.

The thing is, no one takes these clowns seriously and once I-P is resolved and the oil starts drying up no one will even bother pretending, so there's nothing worth worrying about at the international level. Obviously there's a problem with Islam and political violence but IMO that's more of a bottom-up cultural issue. Supporting native pro-liberalization groups is much more important than addressing it at the UN.

bjkeefe
02-28-2009, 08:17 AM
The only real effect of this resolution will be the opposite of its authoritarian authors' intent: they will either be ignored, or generate a backlash counterproductive to their intent in passing it.

I don't believe this. There are certainly people serving jail time now for blasphemy all over the world.

In case you missed it, one of the Johann Hari columns I linked to below (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=105223#post105223) contained a link to another story (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/editor-arrested-for-outraging-muslims-1607256.html) in The Independent, which begins as follows.

The editor and publisher of a major Indian newspaper have been arrested for "hurting the religious feelings" of Muslims after they reprinted an article from The Independent. Ravindra Kumar and Anand Sinha, the editor and publisher of the Kolkata-based English daily The Statesman, appeared in court yesterday charged under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code which forbids "deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings".

Sections of central Kolkata have been paralysed by protests for much of the past week after The Statesman republished an article by The Independent's columnist Johann Hari. Titled "Why should I respect oppressive religions?", the piece was originally printed in The Independent on 28 January. In it, Hari said he believed the right to criticise any religion was being eroded around the world.

The Statesman, a highly respected liberal English-language daily, reprinted the article on 5 February, causing a major backlash among a small group of Muslims who felt that the piece slighted the Prophet Mohamed and insulted their religion. Peaceful protests were held outside The Statesman's offices at the weekend but by Monday, demonstrations had turned violent. Angry crowds began blocking roads, attacking police and calling for the arrest of the article's author and the newspaper's publisher and editor. On Monday and Tuesday police used baton charges to try to disperse crowds and more than 70 protesters were arrested.

To emphasize: this happened in India.

I also have a sense, largely developed from listening to Pat Condell (http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell), that the UK is at a place right now where agitation by some members of their Muslim community has, from time to time, produced a pronounced dampening effect on free speech. Certainly the Geert Wilders episode (link (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/otm-reacts-to-geert-wilders-news.html) repeat) demonstrates this.

Here's something else (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/02/a-free-speech-killer/) to consider:

Another of America's leading First Amendment lawyers, Marc Stern, co-executive director of the American Jewish Congress, makes a crucial point: If this approach to "defamation of religion" were to become a crime under international law (under the impetus of the U.N. resolution), "nations would be able to seek extradition and trial abroad of persons who make statements critical or offensive to one or all faiths anywhere in the world."

So, to Twin, I'd say this UN resolution will not be ignored. Instead, there are two things that I worry about regarding this UN resolution:

(1) It might add weight to religious groups in democracies that seek to inhibit criticism of religion. This, in turn, may lead to governments erring in their favor every time a specific kerfuffle flares up, since most politicians are motivated by things like fear of being blamed for not preventing violence and fear of being called intolerant of religious beliefs, and they are largely immune to considerations of long-term cumulative effects of decisions they make to get through a given day.

(2) The push to get the UN to adopt it will provoke far-right groups to react to it, further aggravating tensions. Indeed, it already seems to have done this.

This may be a stretch, but I also wonder about the possibility that Christianist groups, particularly in the US, will latch onto this resolution and use it as a club against people who speak out against them. You say elsewhere that people in the US will never stand for an abrogation of our First Amendment rights, and certainly I agree that we're not going to see any sweeping restrictions put in place overnight. However, there might well be efforts to chip away at the edges, and even if these efforts do not result in laws being passed, they can have a chilling effect on social norms and mainstream discourse.

Granted, this is largely speculation on my part. But it seems to me the time to speak up is now, not later, just in case any of my dark forebodings have merit. And in any case, the very idea that criticism of religious belief ought to be prohibited is inherently wrong-headed, so it ought to be opposed on principle alone.

As Johann Hari said (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/freedom-of-speech-means-especially.html):

The solution to the problems of free speech – that sometimes people will say terrible things – is always and irreducibly more free speech.

bjkeefe
02-28-2009, 08:28 AM
As I do.

And it's also a good argument for:

(1) Not being terribly worried about it.

(2) Welcoming the challenge, if you're an athiest hostile to religion or a civil libertarian anxious to expand the boundaries of free speech; because the effect of this resolution will be precisely the opposite of its authors' intent.

Don't agree with the first. I am always worried by any effort to limit free speech. In my view, these things creep upon a society -- each limitation can always be pitched as "It's just a little thing. Do you really need to say that, when it's so offensive to some people? Come on, get a life." And then the Overton Window shifts another little bit.

Agree with the second, at least as a possibility.

The good news is that religion, by this act, is hurting its clout. People throughout the West will not take kindly to Arab states dictating to the terms of our discourse. Free speech advocates should, frankly, be happy that this gauntlet was thrown down.

In some ways, I agree. It's good that the enemies of free speech are grabbing for the spotlight, rather than pushing for their goals in a more stealthy manner.

My problem, right now, is that the general (classical) liberal attitude, as measured by the lack of MSM news about this and the absence of chatter in the blogosphere anywhere but on fairly extreme anti-Muslim sites, appears to be somewhere between pollyanish and apathetic.

Even if one believes that the resolution will have little meaningful effect, it would be good if people besides what amount to hate groups were speaking out against it.

bjkeefe
02-28-2009, 08:35 AM
I agree that in some borderline countries, this could help push the society towards greater authoritarianism. Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc., are probably a lost cause for religious freedom or free speech anyway, with or without this resolution.

It's not going to help these countries avoid becoming a permanent lost cause if we acquiesce to the efforts to make blasphemy a crime elsewhere.

bjkeefe
02-28-2009, 08:53 AM
Has anyone actually read the text of the resolution? I have not.

Via Googling (http://www.google.com/search?q=%E2%80%9CCombating+Defamation+of+Religion %E2%80%9D) the string “Combating Defamation of Religion,” I came across something on UNwatch.org which looks like it might be it: {PDF (http://www.unwatch.org/atf/cf/%7B6DEB65DA-BE5B-4CAE-8056-8BF0BEDF4D17%7D/DEFAMATION2008UNGA.PDF) | Google's version via View as HTML (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:1GNwA31g_64J:www.unwatch.org/atf/cf/%257B6DEB65DA-BE5B-4CAE-8056-8BF0BEDF4D17%257D/DEFAMATION2008UNGA.PDF+%E2%80%9CCombating+Defamati on+of+Religion%E2%80%9D&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us).}

bjkeefe
02-28-2009, 01:02 PM
The only real effect of this resolution will be the opposite of its authoritarian authors' intent: they will either be ignored, or generate a backlash counterproductive to their intent in passing it.

On the backlash front ;^), one thought that just occurred to me:

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the resolution passes and acquires some teeth.

How rich would it be if it were immediately used against radical Muslim clerics who preach against Israel and Jews and Judaism in general?

Even better, what if it were used against those who rail against infidels like me? Arguably, my being an atheist would fall under the category of religious beliefs, at least for the purposes of this resolution, right?

Maybe I should support the resolution!

Ocean
02-28-2009, 01:08 PM
On the backlash front ;^), one thought that just occurred to me:

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the resolution passes and acquires some teeth.

How rich would it be if it were immediately used against radical Muslim clerics who preach against Israel and Jews and Judaism in general?

Even better, what if it were used against those who rail against infidels like me? Arguably, my being an atheist would fall under the category of religious beliefs, at least for the purposes of this resolution, right?

Maybe I should support the resolution!

And that's looking at the bright side...!

Nate
02-28-2009, 07:53 PM
BTW: Thanks for dredging up a video from a conspiracy nut who posts comments like the following on his page:
Haha, sorry I did not realize he was a conspiracy nut. I just saw the video linked to from a blog and thought it was interesting.

TwinSwords
03-01-2009, 01:22 PM
Haha, sorry I did not realize he was a conspiracy nut. I just saw the video linked to from a blog and thought it was interesting.

Heh, no problem, it seems like they are just about the only ones talking about it, which is a big part of the reason why I initially dismissed concern about it.

In fact, let me describe how I first heard the Blasphemy Resolution had passed the General Assembly vote.

There is a far-right conspiracy nut, TonyEBaker, who I've been following on YouTube. This is a seriously deranged individual who appears to be actively hoping for the violent overthrow of the US government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e-6qh9Mnko). He uses his YouTube channel to network with like-minded extremists and prepare for the coming revolution.

To get a flavor of the far-right's mindset, here are a couple of his shorter videos. They are pretty disturbing:

— Concentration camps for conservatives are being built in the USA. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_QuOKL3ZkI&feature=channel_page) (Note the author of the piece he cites.)

— Barack Obama is planning to unilaterally disarm the United States. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQNlh2sMMNY&feature=channel_page)

He has another where he panics about government nationalization of banks (it would turn us into the USSR), and one in which he accuses President Obama of treason for cancelling Bush's military trials at Guantanamo.

In all four cases, he starts with a tiny little fragment of truth (e.g., Obama wants to cancel some old Cold War era defense programs), and twists it into the most extreme possible threat to our nation (Obama is disarming the country).

In any event, a few hours before you posted the video about the UN resolution, TonyEBaker posted a video on the same subject:

— UN US and Islam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHb_kHhl_jg&feature=channel_page)

TwinSwords
03-01-2009, 02:29 PM
Via Googling (http://www.google.com/search?q=%E2%80%9CCombating+Defamation+of+Religion %E2%80%9D) the string “Combating Defamation of Religion,” I came across something on UNwatch.org which looks like it might be it: {PDF (http://www.unwatch.org/atf/cf/%7B6DEB65DA-BE5B-4CAE-8056-8BF0BEDF4D17%7D/DEFAMATION2008UNGA.PDF) | Google's version via View as HTML (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:1GNwA31g_64J:www.unwatch.org/atf/cf/%257B6DEB65DA-BE5B-4CAE-8056-8BF0BEDF4D17%257D/DEFAMATION2008UNGA.PDF+%E2%80%9CCombating+Defamati on+of+Religion%E2%80%9D&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us).}

Thanks for finding the document -- assuming that's the resolution in question. I'll have to read it.

It's probably worth reading to see if its content / intent is being purposefully and grossly distorted by the ultraconservative extremists (Dobbs, Gaffney, Free Republic, WorldNetDaily, YouTube loons, and the rest of Wingnuttia (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=007432832765683203066%3Azj_ist-lct4&ie=UTF-8&q=united+nations+resolution+religion)) who are screaming about it.

TwinSwords
03-01-2009, 02:43 PM
On the backlash front ;^)
http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif


Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the resolution passes and acquires some teeth.
I'm with you: I'll suppose it for the sake of this post. However let me take the opportunity to say, here, that the resolution did pass, and it is non-binding. (There was some question elsewhere in this thread about whether it was non-binding.)



How rich would it be if it were immediately used against radical Muslim clerics who preach against Israel and Jews and Judaism in general?
That's an amusing irony, but I feel sure you would not actually support criminal penalties against people who "preach against Israel and Jews and Judaism."

Nevertheless, if the resolution did pass and acquire teeth, I can't see any reason why it could NOT be used against anti-Jewish bigots.



Even better, what if it were used against those who rail against infidels like me? Arguably, my being an atheist would fall under the category of religious beliefs, at least for the purposes of this resolution, right?

Maybe I should support the resolution!

Heh. But it is a worthwhile question, whether the language of the resolution is written in such a way that athiests are included in the broad definition of "religious belief."

bjkeefe
03-01-2009, 03:21 PM
That's an amusing irony, but I feel sure you would not actually support criminal penalties against people who "preach against Israel and Jews and Judaism."

Quite so. However, I do think the chance to embarrass them by hoisting them with their own petard is delicious, not to mention potentially effective.

Nate
03-01-2009, 03:23 PM
I actually saw the video linked (or discussed on) a number of what might be considered "liberal" blogs. (those having to do with skepticism, free thought, and atheism/agnosticism) I realize they these concepts are not strictly affiliated with conservatism or liberalism per se, but they are concepts generally more prevalent among liberals and libertarians than conservatives.

bjkeefe
03-01-2009, 03:34 PM
In any event, a few hours before you posted the video about the UN resolution, TonyEBaker posted a video on the same subject:

— UN US and Islam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHb_kHhl_jg&feature=channel_page)

Video no longer available.

And you know what that means! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW8RgmEJs-8)

bjkeefe
03-01-2009, 03:42 PM
— Concentration camps for conservatives are being built in the USA. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_QuOKL3ZkI&feature=channel_page) (Note the author of the piece he cites.)

ROFL! I saw the URL said WingNutDaily, so I was already prepared for a laugh, but the byline is pure comedy gold.

bjkeefe
03-02-2009, 09:48 AM
MLG called my attention to a post on UN Dispatch, put up this morning: "Lou Dobbs on 'UN Anti-Blasphemy' Resolution, Gets Facts Wrong (http://www.undispatch.com/node/7768)."

Excerpt:

Despite Dobbs' hyperventilating, there is really not much to this. The 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Conferences periodically bring up some sort of anti-blasphemy resolution in UN forums. This done for domestic political consumption -- i.e. politicians in OIC countries table symbolic resolutions like this to curry favor with the religious right (sound familiar?). There's never been an anti-blasphemy resolution passed in the General Assembly and I don't expect there ever will be.

TwinSwords
03-02-2009, 10:13 AM
Video no longer available.
That video is still there, but you aren't missing much.

I don't know why, but that error (video no longer available) appears from time to time, even when a video is still online. Remember a few months ago (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/12/play-loud.html) I tried to play a video you had embedded on your blog and got the same message?


And you know what that means! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW8RgmEJs-8)

ROFL. And yet, it's the truth: the so-called "patriots" on YouTube are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that "NWO puppets" who control YouTube are systematically censoring their videos -- even as they post one after another.

Check out this lunatic:

— YOUTUBE PANTS DOWN SOLD OUT TO THE NWO MUST WATCH! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2sGk2d9rZo&feature=channel_page)

AemJeff
03-02-2009, 10:20 AM
MLG called my attention to a post on UN Dispatch, put up this morning: "Lou Dobbs on 'UN Anti-Blasphemy' Resolution, Gets Facts Wrong (http://www.undispatch.com/node/7768)."

Excerpt:

Thanks for tracking that down, Brendan. "Domestic political consumption" is an excellent, highly plausible explanation for why this sort of resolution would be brought up periodically.

TwinSwords
03-02-2009, 10:23 AM
Thanks for tracking that down, Brendan. "Domestic political consumption" is an excellent, highly plausible explanation for why this sort of resolution would be brought up periodically.

I second Jeff: Thanks for bringing us the link. Never would have heard about it if you didn't post it.

bjkeefe
03-02-2009, 10:36 AM
ROFL. And yet, it's the truth: the so-called "patriots" on YouTube are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that "NWO puppets" who control YouTube are systematically censoring their videos -- even as they post one after another.

Check out this lunatic:

— YOUTUBE PANTS DOWN SOLD OUT TO THE NWO MUST WATCH! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2sGk2d9rZo&feature=channel_page)

LOL! The irony of Obama being called a Nazie [sic] by a poster child for the Aryan Nation cannot be overstated.

Simon Willard
03-02-2009, 04:37 PM
Thank God. You're safe for now BJ.

bjkeefe
03-02-2009, 04:40 PM
Thank God. You're safe for now BJ.

Nice.

Mark Turner
03-03-2009, 11:49 AM
Wow.

While I respect the sentiment - and find the question of defamation of religion to be dangerous - the suggestion that the UN is actively criminalising anything here is nonsense. The GA is a meeting room. To say that because people in a meeting room take a position you dislike, there should be no meeting room, seems a little bizarre.

Lou Dobbs comes across as such an uninformed blowhard here, he undermines his point entirely - at least to people who understands this.

One might also add, I'd love to see the prospects for an avowed atheist in the US.

Theocracy has been a pretty serious danger in the US also. Hopefully it is waning now.

Lyle
03-06-2009, 05:05 PM
Well, "the Left" has a weak spot for multiculturalism and has a very hard time pointing fingers at "the other".

Nate
03-20-2009, 05:16 AM
Pat Condell (humorously) weighs in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bzTA_D5NpU

AemJeff
03-20-2009, 08:06 AM
Pat Condell (humorously) weighs in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bzTA_D5NpU

Heh. Don't you wish that just once, he'd say exactly what he means and be done with all that polite circumlocution?

pampl
03-20-2009, 10:50 AM
Theocracy has been a pretty serious danger in the US also

You'd have to be crazier than ol Lou to believe this.

Lyle
03-21-2009, 12:32 AM
Theocracy has been a pretty serious danger in the US also. Hopefully it is waning now.

Please go into more detail about this.

Lyle
03-21-2009, 12:35 AM
Yeah, I love Pat Condell as well. Not afraid to tell Islamists (others too) where to stick it.

bjkeefe
03-21-2009, 04:35 AM
Another vote for Pat Condell.

Here's one my favorites (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/01/thinking-about-tomorrow.html) by him.

bjkeefe
03-25-2009, 03:36 AM
New Pat Condell video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQSJae6RuCk) now up. Today's message: Unity!