Say Anything Blog

Here’s a link to the resolution:
http://www.wfdd.org.uk/united_nations/UNHRtsCommissT_ext.pdf

Would you mind reading through it and citing specific examples of “anti-Christian bigotry.” Of particular interest would be en example of where this resolution makes being a Christian “an international crime.” Don’t get me wrong, I disagree with this resolution and all speech codes and I don’t think the United States should agree to this. However, it seems a bit alarmist to refer to the resolution as “anti-Christian bigotry” and to state that it attemps to make being a Christian an international crime.

Let me be the first. Fuck you United Nations, and fuck you Organization of the Islamic Conference. Now prosecute me, socialist cowards.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Midwest_man:
I quoted an article, I believe had merit - I did not invest the time researching the original text. If you did - great!

Hate crimes laws never specifify any particular faith, they wouldn’t dare be that transparent lest they expose their anti-Christian agenda. Nonetheless, can we agree that since this propoal is based on Sharia Law, it is inherently anti-Christian and anti-Jewish in nature?

“The implementation of domestic laws to combat defamation of religion in many OIC countries reveals a selective and arbitrary enforcement toward religious minorities, who are often Christians. Those violations are frequently punishable by the death penalty.”

“This is very important to understand. This radical proposal would outlaw Christianity … it would make the proclamation of your faith an international crime.”

The fact is that Christanity almost to the exclusion of all other faith based religions condemns Islam as being Satanic in nature, they are committed to exposing the lies of Islam in order to evangelize Muslims. What other faith but Christianity would so oppose Islam in the pulpit and on the street? Well what about the Jews? Only in Israel and even then it is not generally religious in nature. Thus, this idea of defaming Islam and making the feelings of Muslims the standard of hate speech has to aimed at Christians and no other faith!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman,

I would agree that it would be hypocritical for countries to sign this proposal especially when they participate in state sponsored oppression of other religions. Once again, I would encourage you to read the actual proposal before drawing conclusions. It doesn’t actually outlaw Christianity or the practice of any religion. It does however, specifically address discrimination against Muslims while glaring over the oppressions that many Muslim theocracies impose on other religions.

Here’s an article by an American Muslim organization.
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/combating_defamation_of_religions/

Since I’m sure it will come up, I am not saying I agree with everything the author says in the article. I just wanted to show an example of how some Muslims disagree with this measure in order to show that it’s not a “Muslim conspiracy” to “outlaw Christianity.” The author essentially makes the same points that I am making, stating the hypocrisy of demanding religious tolerance from countries that are the worst offenders of religious oppression. Here are some excerpts from the resolution:

5. Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any
other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards
Islam or any other religion;

6. Expresses deep concern at programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups
aimed at the defamation of religions, in particular when supported by Governments;

7. Urges all States, within their national legal framework, in conformity with international human
rights instruments, to take all appropriate measures to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and
acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by religious intolerance, including attacks on
religious places, and to encourage understanding, tolerance and respect in matters relating to freedom
of religion or belief;

9. Strongly deplores physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural centres and places of worship
of all religions;

10. Encourages States, within their respective constitutional systems, to provide adequate protection
against all human rights violations resulting from defamation of religions and to take all possible
measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems;

I can understand that disagreeing with a religion can be misconstrued as “defaming” a religion, but this resolution does not pose any binding actions and as item 10 notes, leaves it to states to deal with issues “within their respective constitutional systems.” So I cannot see how being a Christian would be an international crime. The resolution mostly talks about discouraging discrimination based on religion and I agree that governments shouldn’t discriminate based on religion. However, it would be nice if we could get the Muslim theocracries on board with that idea.

Midwest_man:
If you own a perfectly legal bar and the government passes laws saying you cannot sell any liquor and your cusotomers may not drink any liqour inside or outside your establishment, haven’t they made your business illegal without making the owning of a bar for the sale of liquor illegal?

If Christians are threatened with criminal punishment for speaking against Islam and/or sin inside their church or outside in the public square; hasn’t the U.N. effectively made Christianity illegal, outlawed it entirely aound the world without specicilly saying it is illegal? After all, if you prevent Christians from preaching particular matters about the dangers of Islam and speaking to those same issues to evangelize others, including to Muslims, is for all intent and purposes to make Christianity itself illegal.

That charge was perfectly reasonable to make against this proposal; it is designed without using the specific words to make Christianity itself illegal. Oh, by the way Biblical prophecy tells us that in the End Times Christianity will be a crime all over the world, so this idea doesn’t surprise me or upset me.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Campaign to defend freedom of religion worldwide. Bullshit. Is not Christianity a religion? I have already faced my toilet to face Mecca. What else do they want?

What is that the Founders warned us against?  That night does not descend all at once?  And that liberty is not lost in one fell swoop, but by stealthy encroachment?  I am paraphrasing.

This is tyranny with the imprimatur of law.

That is why you have to make a clear distinction between what is law (legis) and what is justice (juris) because sometimes, as here, they are opposites.

We would be fools to submit ourselves to this BS, but then again, we have McCain / Obama, Congress and the SCOTUS to do all that for us.

We need to get out of the UN and cut off all funding—yesterday.

...for great justice

How quick would they jump on our shit if we said islam is now not to be spoken of in public and take those scarves off your ladies heads because they speak of religion [unless its 32 below outside]i agree with the previous writer,get out of the u.n. and do it now.as far as being a christian and being afraid of being illegal,forget it,most christians i know would and probaly will die defending their faith.i have read the bible and have studied prophecy enough to know we win in the end..there will be a battle,but we win,so suck it up and pass your pathetic resolution,it is useless

To OIC & UN
Biblical Christianity will continue to be practiced & spread,legally or illegally,above ground or underground.