• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Muslim Nations Seeking International Blasphemy Ban

MyOwnDrum

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
1,374
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
What do you think? The whole idea offends my concept of free speech. Should blasphemy be grouped as hate speech?

GENEVA — Four years after cartoons of the prophet Muhammad set off violent protests across the Muslim world, Islamic nations are mounting a campaign for an international treaty to protect religious symbols and beliefs from mockery — essentially a ban on blasphemy that would put them on a collision course with free speech laws in the West.

Documents obtained by The Associated Press show that Algeria and Pakistan have taken the lead in lobbying to eventually bring the proposal to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly.

If ratified in countries that enshrine freedom of expression as a fundamental right, such a treaty would require them to limit free speech if it risks seriously offending religious believers. The process, though, will take years and no showdown is imminent.

The proposal faces stiff resistance from Western countries, including the United States, which in the past has brushed aside other U.N. treaties, such as one on the protection of migrant workers.

Experts say the bid stands some chance of eventual success if Muslim countries persist. And whatever the outcome, the campaign risks reigniting tensions between Muslims and the West that President Barack Obama has pledged to heal, reviving fears of a "clash of civilizations."
 
Neither blasphemy nor hate speech should be outlawed by civilized nations. It is sufficient for protestors to be smacked down hard whenever they step out of line.

My country can't even keep its own government from funding blasphemy. I'd like to see what would happen if they even tried to outlaw it.
 
Neither blasphemy nor hate speech should be outlawed by civilized nations. It is sufficient for protestors to be smacked down hard whenever they step out of line.

My country can't even keep its own government from funding blasphemy. I'd like to see what would happen if they even tried to outlaw it.
Blasphemy is a meaningless term.
 
It took a minute to find the story with any link to it and all, but I wanted to see of the ACLU had volunteered to fight against the ban because they like to do anything they can to fight against anyone's religion. No wait I was wrong they might help the Islamic bunch because they are Anti-Christian too.
Muslim Nations Seeking International Blasphemy Ban - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

Islamic Blasphemy definitions
1. Use of the term Rag Head in describing anyone from an Arab Country

2. Calling a Muslim Police officer a Pig

3. Use of the term Camel Jockey in describing anyone from an Arab Country unless you are watching a Camel race.

4. Use of the phrase "Now she knows how to fill out a Burka" in describing a Muslim woman."

5. Describing what you are going to do after fasting for Ramadan as "PIGGING OUT"

Under Sharia law
1. If you steal you will have your hand cut off.

2 If you lie you will have your tongue cut off.

3. If you commit adultery you will have your, well let's just say you don't want to commit adultery under Sharia law.
 
What do you think? The whole idea offends my concept of free speech. Should blasphemy be grouped as hate speech?

Screw them. They can live with the ridicule they brought on themselves.
 
It took a minute to find the story with any link to it and all, but I wanted to see of the ACLU had volunteered to fight against the ban because they like to do anything they can to fight against anyone's religion. No wait I was wrong they might help the Islamic bunch because they are Anti-Christian too.
Muslim Nations Seeking International Blasphemy Ban - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

Islamic Blasphemy definitions
1. Use of the term Rag Head in describing anyone from an Arab Country

2. Calling a Muslim Police officer a Pig

3. Use of the term Camel Jockey in describing anyone from an Arab Country unless you are watching a Camel race.

4. Use of the phrase "Now she knows how to fill out a Burka" in describing a Muslim woman."

5. Describing what you are going to do after fasting for Ramadan as "PIGGING OUT"

Under Sharia law
1. If you steal you will have your hand cut off.

2 If you lie you will have your tongue cut off.

3. If you commit adultery you will have your, well let's just say you don't want to commit adultery under Sharia law.

Sharia law is outdated bull**** that needs to be universally canceled.
 
I can see this working with the Arab League but the UN? I don't think so. If secularism can be blasphemed by religious radicals then secuarlists should be able to attack them back. Anything less is restrictive to freedom of thought.
 
What do you think? The whole idea offends my concept of free speech. Should blasphemy be grouped as hate speech?

More "wisdom" from the "religion of peace".

I despise all religions, but I hold a special hate for Islam.
 
Should the Civilized World signs this, it would be a sad day indeed for freedom, liberty or hell common sense.

"I don't have to like what you might say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it!"

Damn shame we've so forgotten that simple, but powerful sentiment eh?
 
Considering how the press in these various Muslim countries depicts the star of David, should I assume they plan on arresting themselves first?
 
Should the Civilized World signs this, it would be a sad day indeed for freedom, liberty or hell common sense.

"I don't have to like what you might say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it!"

Damn shame we've so forgotten that simple, but powerful sentiment eh?

It seems.

The Muslim cry now is "I don't have to like what you might say, but I'll fight to the death for you to shut the hell up, you damn infidel dog!"

The Dhimwits around the world are saying "Islam is peaceful. Don't insult Islam!"

(dhimmi = non-Muslim collaborator, in Arabic)
 
That's because, as a religion, libertarianism is more dogmatic and irrational than all the others combined.
 
While it seems like it would be unlikely this ever passed, never count out the cowardice and appeasement of the UN, particularly when it comes to the Middle East.
 
The National Endowment for the Arts. Noble enough in its intent, but in practice they end up subsidizing a good deal of blasphemous, obscene, or otherwise disgusting filth in place of anything I can recognize as art. To be fair, they get it right sometimes, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out Piss Christ shouldn't have gotten government money.

There isn't much fine art these days that's worth a damn. Seems like everyone with a talent for it goes commercial instead and a thousand years from now our culture will be remembered for billboards.
 
Hatuey must be rubbing off on you.

No. Just too many arguments about pornography and other "human rights" that all boil down to the idea that society doesn't exist and "rugged individualists" shouldn't have to follow its rules, despite society and its rules being the only way that their standard of living is possible.
 
I can see this working with the Arab League but the UN? I don't think so. If secularism can be blasphemed by religious radicals then secuarlists should be able to attack them back. Anything less is restrictive to freedom of thought.

I'm thinking the UN has already moved one step in that direction based on an article I read a few months back. I'll do a search and see if I can find it. I'm not sure it ties in directly, or maybe it's even a part of the same thing.
 
Well, why not?

The global media already refrains from printing any sort of possible insult to Islam and is careful not to rile up the local crowds. Making it an international law would just legitimze an already cowardly practice.

...but not for non-rioting, non-hijacking, and non-organized terrorism Christians and Jews. For them...let the cartoons flow. They're safe, you see.
 
Back
Top Bottom