|
| |||||||||||||||
lou dobbs,christopher hitchens,islam,united nations,free speech UNITED NATIONS attempts to criminalize blashpemous speechUNITED NATIONS attempts to criminalize blashpemous speechtags:the united nations is attempting to criminalize anti-religious speech.mainly by muslim nations.interesting interview betwen lou dobbs and christopher hitchens. 
Comments  who voted for this video Sagemind
- eric3579
- gwiz665
- RadHazG
- Skeeve
- geo321
- marinara
- EndAll
- BoneyD
- enoch
- TheSofaKing
- therealblankman
- enon
- UsesProzac
- acidSpine
- Lann
- rubadub
- Zyrxil
- silvercord
- nibiyabi
- Lendl
- drattus
- Arg
- Bruti79
- Xehn
- jiyanibi
- dotdude
- mrsid
- steroidg
- waka
- BreaksTheEarth
- chilaxe
- R0SENCRANTZ
- demon_ix
- lavoll
- mj0lnir
- KimzSendai
- dgandhi
- rgroom1
- smiley
- griefer_queafer
- Fred_Chopin
- LightningOfGods
- honkeytonk73
- Zifnab
- blankfist
- xxovercastxx
- GeeSussFreeK
- schmawy
- COriolanus
- jimnms
- poolcleaner
- Plonq
- shole
- GoodAttorney
- dag
- JonnyK
- fizziks
- Crosswords
- Raigen
- sometimes
- Opus_Moderandi
- cybrbeast
- Kevlar
- Raaagh
- WaterDweller
- littledragon_79
- NordlichReiter
- Simple_Man
- haki
- krazyety
- Matthu
- hpqp
- brycewi19
who has this post bookmarked gwiz665
| Friends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote                 Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 14. Seric
(142 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments       | ||||||||||||||
Stumble This
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.
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.
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
I declare a flame war!
>> ^marinara:
can i start the flamewar, please?
When was the last time anyone listened to anything the UN said?
See Israel/Palestine resolutions of the last ohhh 60 fucking years.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?