TheAgitator.com
U.S. Joins Egypt in Sacrificing Free Expression to Religious Sensitivity
Wednesday, October 21st, 2009Jonathan Turley’s op-ed ed in USA Today casts some deserved scorn on the Obama administration for helping push through a UN resolution that lends support to theocratic governments who punish people for criticizing religion.
While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any “negative racial and religious stereotyping.”…
The Egyptian ambassador to the U.N., Hisham Badr, wasted no time in heralding the new consensus with the U.S. that “freedom of expression has been sometimes misused” and showing that the “true nature of this right” must yield government limitations. His U.S. counterpart, Douglas Griffiths, heralded “this joint project with Egypt” and supported the resolution to achieve “tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” While not expressly endorsing blasphemy prosecutions, the administration departed from other Western allies in supporting efforts to balance free speech against the protecting of religious groups. Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred institution of society.
Turley then ticks off a litany of recent blasphemy prosecutions the resolution would ostensibly support, including a British teen charged for insulting Scientology, an Italian comedian prosecuted for insulting the Pope, and prosecutions in Austria, India, and Finland for calling Mohammed a pedophile. As Turley explains, the UN resolution is only symbolic. But the Obama administration deserves condemnation for aligning itself with religious sensitivity and religious extremists over free expression.
I would criticize the Obama Administration for this but then I realized that for the good of the state my criticism should be silenced. Don’t want the unwashed masses stirring up any touble you know.
There is a difference between being sympathetic and kissing ass.
Pity that Obama doesn’t understand that difference.
And more of a pity that he thinks Freedom of Expression is something that can be sacrificed.
Um, the UK dosn’t have a blaphemy law since, well, last year.
And I’d point out that the charges against the UK teen were tossed out by a judge at the first hurdle. The RRHA 1996 is a few things, but it’s not a blaphemy law – the provision for “abusive and insulting” was removed from the final law precisely because of concern about the implications.
…2006 *cough*
Wait, isn’t the left supposed to be the champions of free expression? Oops. I forgot. They only support free expression if it doesn’t hurt someone’s feelings.
The idea that freedom of expression can be “misused” by saying something that offends someone makes as much sense as saying freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, war is peace, etc, etc, etc.
Maybe the right will voice outrage at this, not that the right is any champion of free expression (especially when that expression is offensive to religion), but simply because their day to day agenda is usually just based on mindlessly opposing anything the left does.
Tolerate others or we’ll shoot you.
You have free speech unless the content offends…and we are offending by a lot
Land of the Free*, home of the Brave**
* Free being used as a Madison Avenue exaggeration
** Brave only when invading other countries
It’s nice that the charges against the teen were tossed out – he should never have been charged in the first place. Hopefully he did not have to pay any fees, charges, or for his own counsel.
Your “god” does not exist. You are deluded if you believe he does. I don’t spend a lot of effort denigrating theistic beliefs (waste of time) but I will certainly not shy away from expressing my sincere convictions on the subject when appropriate.
If GOD don’t effin’ like it, he can get off his fat omnipotent ass and do something about. The rest of the world can call me a hellbound fool and quote scripture, no more than that.
The left generally only supports their freedom to insult those who don’t believe their views.
Its like they opened Atlas Shrugged and copied word for word Wesley Mouch and Jim Taggart. Wow, at least provide a reference.
This is something for which conservatives haven’t gotten any credit. The only cases where mainstream conservatives have actually favored censorship are in cases where arguably the founding fathers did not even consider the “speech” to be protected by the first amendment, like pornography.
Even ultra-right wing Christians do not support blasphemy laws, even though according to Christianity, blaspheming the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven under any circumstance.
Arab muslims are Pedophile worshipping Sand Niggers.
Come and get me cocksuckers
What a shocker! I never would have guessed that Obama would take such positions. It’s not like he doesn’t have a history of Marxist positions, despite trying to get a lot of his personal background squashed so only his version of events and data are available.
Re: “Chris”:
There’s a difference between opposing censorship and intentionally engaging in bigoted douchebaggery.
You fail the test.
Uh…Obama isn’t a Marxist. And Marx was an atheist. So you comment really has nothing at all to do with this post, which is about Obama endorsing the suppression of free speech to protect religious sensibilities.
And take your birther crap elsewhere. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Obama without indulging in conspiracy theories and hyperbole.
The bigger irony missed here is that the only religion that gets bent out of shape (to the point of killing the critics) over criticism of it is Islam.
But there is a reason for that. And we’d better recognize that reason soon.
Radley,
How could I have made my statement MORE inflammatory?
That to me seems to be the important part. “Discussing censorship”, “opposing censorship” is trying to remain above the fray.
This is a war of ideas that needs to be fought right here and now. Put the rights takers on notice that you plan on doing everything they tell you you can’t do and daring them to act on their words.
Make them show up with guns and try and stop you.
I understand this is your website and you can choose to delete it, prevent me from posting in the future, etc.
But I think it is tremendously important to say and do exactly what they are trying to forbid us from doing, even if you don’t believe in the words themselves.
He’s just an innocent liberal who happens to have a lot of associates who are Marxists.
No one brought up the birther issue except you, Radley. You know better than to jump to conclusions. I am referring to his educational background, his personal ties to business and politics, etc. What he has revealed is not the full picture, as it is proven and undisputed that a lot of this type of info has been “renditioned” by his cadre of attorneys.
I will throw in that the focus should be on all of Congress as well, since most of them are complicit in the crimes being foisted upon this country. Always has been that way, though …
Furthermore Radley, discussing or opposing censorship makes it sound like it’s a debate whether we will or won’t have it is just an academic discussion. You know the most compelling argument will win out. Even if the censorship side ‘loses’ today we might have this debate again in the future and different set of arguments may sway the manjority to sign away the RIGHTS of the minority.
I reject that idea. Not only did the founders not leave a mechanism to start censorship, they specifically outlawed it.
Yeah, like I said. Everyone supports free expression as long as it doesn’t offend someone.
If we’re splitting hairs and using quotes and stuff, I would classify porn as freedom of the press, not “speech”.
And I’m sure that every single exception to the First Amendment (of which the list is endless) can be categorized as expression that the founders “arguably” did not intend to be protected.
One of the more recent freedom of the press issues is the publishing of photography showing the death of an American serviceman. I guess the publication of an image of an American kid having his limbs blown off by an RPG in a foreign country under an operation originally initiated under the name “Iraqi Freedom” just doesn’t qualify as something that the founders would have considered important. So, where is the stand of the mainstream conservatives over this censorship? And what did they do to fix it when they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House?
When your name is Neda Soltan dying in the name of Iranian freedom, it’s news worthy. When your name is Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard dying in the name of “Iraqi Freedom”, it should be suppressed so it doesn’t hurt enlistments.
The best is when someone uses the baseless argument of “your free speech and freedoms end where mine begins”. You can’t do/say/see things that hurt my agenda or desires.
While that’s true now, Christianity doesn’t exactly have a stellar history of tolerance for their critics.
When I see Christians condemning Muslims for their violent intolerance toward those who disagree with them, I think of the generation of folks who happily participated in the drug culture of the sixty’s who now think nothing of destroying those who would simply follow in their footsteps.
I’m not condoning Islamic violence. I’m simply pointing out that if anyone in The West can understand the utter intolerance of a religion toward dissent, it should be Christians.
Correction: Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard was killed in Afghanistan, not Iraq. He was, in fact, not one of the four thousand killed under the banner of “Iraqi Freedom”, but it was the publication of pictures of him dying that stirred the recent debate (what little of it there was) over the routine censorship of images that might disturb the heroic macho portrayal of military service that the military relies on to keep the flow cannon fodder into its ranks.
FWIW I’m a liberal and I think Obama is wrong wrong wrong on this one.
That said, I don’t think the conservative track record on free speech is particularly stellar. Frankly, conservatives only seem interested in defending the rights of fellow (white, generally christian and male) conservatives to make disparaging remarks about various racial, religious, and sexual minorities. And, you know, I agree with them–folks should have the right to say those things. But I think their selective outrage is pretty telling, as is their demonization of groups like the ACLU which take a far more consistent stance.
Radley,
You say that Obama isn’t a Marxist.
I’m curious, how would you describe him?
Dave,
Did I miss something? I didn’t say anything about Christians did I?
So what was your point?
I will elaborate by saying – Islam isn’t just anti-Christian, it is anti-everything else. According to Islam, if you’re not Muslim, then you are NOTHING and whatever happens to you is of no concern.
And that is what everybody better start recognizing.
And some wonder why there are so many people who hate religion.
Amusing thing is that the countries pushing this also won’t follow it. It’s an effort to silence Western countries that have free speech. What they are pushing is to prevent criticism of religion. Yet if you go to those countries they constantly ridicule and denigrate other religions. If they had to follow what they proposed they would have to ban the Koran. That isn’t likely to happen.
I’m not condoning Islamic violence. I’m simply pointing out that if anyone in The West can understand the utter intolerance of a religion toward dissent, it should be Christians.
Likewise, while there are many valid criticisms of Islam, I can’t shake the feeling that a good number of its most vociferous critics in the US and Europe are more concerned about the primacy of their own religion than they are freedom of speech or human rights or what have you.
No. You said “the only religion that gets bent out of shape (to the point of killing the critics) over criticism of it is Islam”. I was simply pointing out that, historically, that’s not true. Christianity has a long history of persecuting, torturing, and executing those who dissent.
And Christianity teaches that everyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ as their lord and savior is going to burn in hell for all eternity. Thinking of us as merely NOTHING would actually be an improvement.
I have no particular affection for any religion. While I don’t blame it for all the world’s conflicts, religion certainly plays a major part in defining who the teams are. If you keep poking a hornets nest with a stick and suddenly they all come after you, it’s not particularly useful or accurate to make the assertion that “everybody better start recognizing” that hornets are all a bunch of mean assholes who hate everyone.
When you think about it, the U.S. has managed to do something that has never been done in the history of the planet: unite the Arab world against a common enemy. Shouldn’t we get some kind of Noble prize for that? Israel could, of course, be a co-recipient.
Well Dave,
“I have no particular affection for any religion”.
That gets you nothing from Christians today. Try that in an Islamic country and see what you get.
Take a look around and see what France, the UK, and most of the rest of Europe are getting from tolerating Islam.
I’ll give you a hint. It’s pretty difficult to tolerate an intolerant, violent, colonizing, “religion”.
an excellent piece from Slate on the UN resolution (from back in March)
http://www.slate.com/id/2212662/
I now foresee what I will eventually be incarcerated for as, over the course of my lifetime, I believe I have made fun of EVERY religion upon this planet that I know of…and will continue to do so until they pry my copy of Darwin’s, “The Origin of the Species”, from my cold, dead fingers…
The lack of religious “tolerance” was pointed out as one of the reasons that the pilgrims fled England. Sadly, I think there are plenty of the US populace, of all religious affiliations, who would wish to push their views on others.
That being said, that is one of the reasons I like the first amendment, so much. It establishes a freedom to practice ones own beliefs without the government interfering (”free practice thereof”). But, the religious tolerance, our country was founded on, is not, so, obvious in our modern society. At least, we seem to be tolerant enough not to kill, beat, or maim those who would not believe as we do. From what I understand of Islam, it is not free from those inclinations.
Still, no one can establish a “national” religion, according to that, same, amendment. On the other hand no one should be able to make it illegal to criticize any religions, either. The reactions, of Islam, to the pictures of Mohammad, in the past, being one example of their typical reaction to any “blasphemy” of their religion. This new directive being an extension of the same.
And, Chris, you can criticize my religion any way you want. I will not judge ur condemn you or feel that you must be murdered, as the Koran calls for?! It is your right to practice any beliefs (or non-beliefs) you want, according to our Constitution! The law and religion should be kept separate as it was established in the Constitution. Or, are we to forget it and just start putting people in jail for verbal expressions of intolerance or disbelief of one of many of the established religions in our country? God forbid!
Just FYI, I have to make a correction. BTW I am a christian, and rather familiar with scripture, and as a conservative christian believe in free will and freedom above ALL else. God gave us free will, why should we not afford it to one another? We are not the judge of our brothers and sisters.
“And Christianity teaches that everyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ as their lord and savior is going to burn in hell for all eternity. Thinking of us as merely NOTHING would actually be an improvement.”
This is not what scripture teaches. Scripture simply says that if you do not accept Jesus as your savior then you are judged by your works and cast into the lake of fire. It says the EFFECTS of the fire are eternal. SO… you are judged based on your works and are punished accordingly. This could be an instant for some people, and longer for others. Not that you will continue to burn for enternity.
He’s a Republican.
#36 Michael,
I hope you read comments #17, and 21 in addition to the first. My point is there are things really worth FIGHTING (fists, guns, etc) for. And the right to be as offensive to any group as possible is #1 on that list.
You and I agree on this issue, my fight isn’t with you. My fight is with the people who would say you are not man enough to take my insults to your religion, and you shouldn’t have to hear them. Or worse yet, if you do hear them the offender should be put in jail or worse for it.
And the point I was trying to make is I’m ready to take those people on. That is an idea that has been given too much play. That is quite literally an idea that people need to be bloodied over.
I’m usually content to lurk around here, but I am seeing more than a little misinformation here. I will use the most recent post as my talking point, and bring in some apparently much-needed historical
” Christianity has a long history of persecuting, torturing, and executing those who dissent.”
Not really. Christianity has a long history with torture, persecution, and execution, but more often than not it is on the receiving end. There have been periods where it has been fashionable for a State Religion calling itself Christianity to persecute, torture, and execute, but the same is true for any State Religion (including the State Atheism of the USSR, China, Cuba, etc).
More often than not, when a “Christian” is involved in persecution it is against other Christians (and sometimes Jews).
The longest period of such persecution happened just after the Reformation turned the “State Religion” of the Holy Roman Empire on it’s head. This period lasted two to three hundred years (I’d say from about the founding of the Spanish Inquisition until the re-establishment of the British monarchy following the English Civil War, the American Revolution at the latest), and can be seen as much as a European civil war as it can a “religious persecution”. (As for “witches”, well, I can’t look fondly on “little old biddies” under “persecution”, for it is true that Satanism was alive and well during the Middle Ages: True Satanism, the worship of evil done through evil acts. Ladies, in the technical sense, who wished to remain young would bathe in blood of peasant’s infants, and we are told of a consort of a French king who went to rather criminal lengths to keep his favor. I’m with the peasants, Burn ‘em!). The product of all this fighting in Europe was our beloved First Amendment, with it’s guarantee of freedoms of speech and press (and because this was the ancestor it is religious dissent we should indeed be fighting for!) and freedom from the establishment of a State (Federal) Religion (although a few states did have an established religion, with Mass. being the last to dis-establish).
Now, what of the “Crusades” that great evil of Christianity that has become a Godard’s Law of it’s own in discussions of religion? If we look at the last Crusade, much indeed seems to be wrong, and we do find that greatest evil of Christianity: Christians attacking other Christians, as the Crusaders ignored their orders to reclaim Jerusalem and sacked Constantinople. But what of the history before this? Where did the Crusades start?
In the wars between Christianity and Islam, Islam was always the aggressor. Now, I am going to assume that a good many of us readers of this blog are against wars of imperialism and conquest
and “spreading democracy”, but I am also more than willing to bet that a good number of us would be more than happy to take up arms against an invading force (or a corrupt ruling force). And this is how things developed: Mohammed gave the world of Allah that Islam must conquer the world through force, so good Muslims conquered the Persian Empire, conquered most of Northern Africa, and started making their merry, bloodthirsty way into Spain. It is possible that pious and God-fearing Christians laid down before the Muslim invaders and offered their heads, but a good many others can be forgiven if they would be damned before somebody came into their home with some swords and told them how to worship. They beat the Muslims back to the southernmost portion of Spain, and that was that for awhile.
A few centuries passed, and Byzantium weakened, and the Muslims were able to get their hands on the crown jewel of Judeo-Christianity: Jerusalem. Now, again, let’s say that some invaders conquered France, and were shelling London, and we were asked for help, what should we do? (Compare the private crusades that started before the First Crusade with those Americans who went to Canada specifically to fight in in RAF… Canada at one point apparently being the place to go to get CAUGHT by a draft.) Now, as to whether or not Rome should have established it’s own Kingdom of Jerusalem instead of giving the territory back to Byzantium- that is a debate still ongoing and heated between Greek and Roman churches (I side with the Greeks on this one). It is unfortunate the Crusades also conjure up all that fundamentalist millenial terror associated with our recent war, but it is hardly a good point on “holy” war.
“According to Islam, if you’re not Muslim, then you are NOTHING and whatever happens to you is of no concern.
And Christianity teaches that everyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ as their lord and savior is going to burn in hell for all eternity. Thinking of us as merely NOTHING would actually be an improvement.”
Well, no, according to Islam if you’re not Muslim you’re going to hell and because you are going to hell you are nothing.
To be technical, Christianity teaches that salvation is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, with the guarantee that all who own Him for Lord will indeed be saved. It also teaches that all mankind will be damned to perdition without this salvation, but the belief that everyone who has not heard of Jesus is going to hell is merely a belief of a small but vocal number of evangelical Christians. The majority of
Christian teachers throughout the ages are quite agnostic on the state of the souls of non-Christians, for God saves whom He will save. There is a very odd loop-hole in the idea that Christ descended into hell to offer salvation to the dead, as well.
“I have no particular affection for any religion. While I don’t blame it for all the world’s conflicts, religion certainly plays a major part in defining who the teams are. If you keep poking a hornets nest with a stick and suddenly they all come after you, it’s not particularly useful or accurate to make the assertion that ‘everybody better start recognizing’ that hornets are all a bunch of mean assholes who hate everyone.”
Actually, I would blame all the world’s and religions’ problems on politics. That’s it, plain and simple. We cannot live and let live, if I live a certain way then you have to, too. It’s no fair if I have to give up soda and candy and potato chips and smoking, everyone has to give them up! I give 20% of my paycheck to the poor, so everyone has to! I listen to the Pope without question, you have to, too! I cannot drink alcohol nor see a woman outside of the traditional burka, damn you Westerners! Politics: making others behave as you think they should. To phrase it in a religio-moral manner: There are those who do not do to others what they would not want done to themselves, there are those who do unto others as they would have done unto themselves, and then there are those who do as they’ve been done by.
“When you think about it, the U.S. has managed to do something that has never been done in the history of the planet: unite the Arab world against a common enemy. Shouldn’t we get some kind of Noble prize for that? Israel could, of course, be a co-recipient.”
First, I should say that the Arab world has ALWAYS been united against the West and only divided amongst themselves. We just gave them better weapons and training.
Second, if Israel had her way, there wouldn’t BE an Arab world anymore. Seriously, have you seen what this country can do in six days?
blah in that first paragraph there should have been the world “perspective” after “historical”
Didymus,
I’m not sure if your criticizing or supporting my point. When I say that Christianity has a long history of persecution, torture, and execution, you respond with “Not really…” and then go on to list examples that support my statement precisely. The fact that much of the persecution carried out by Christians was against other Christians is immaterial, although I was impressed with how simply you dismissed it by simply grouping it all under a heading of “civil war” (which is patently absurd). I have to admit, however, it’s quite novel to hear anyone defend the witch trials and executions.
I was raised Christian and was formally educated as a Christian, so I think I can speak with some authority on how Christians use the threat of eternal damnation to induce obedience. If you wish to deny that, be my guest, but I believe it’s a fact so obvious and widely accepted as to not need further support.
Nothing you said diminishes my point which is quite simple: It’s more than a little disingenuous for someone from the West to point to Islam as a singularly intolerant religion in view of our own history with Christianity. I stand by that view.
Dave,
It takes a serious amount of denial of reality to claim that Islam is somehow comparable today to any other believe system.
Remember, only in Islamic dominated countries do things like female genital mutilation, enslavement of women (and non-Muslims), stonings for “adultery”, cutting off of hands for theft, and other barbaric actions occur on a regular SANCTIONED basis.
Islam is not compatible with freedom, democracy, and civilization. Pretending so is ludicrous.
[...] most significantly – the co-sponsoring of a UN Commission on Human Rights resolution (via Radley Balko) with Egypt. On this, Professor Turley writes: The Egyptian ambassador to the U.N., Hisham Badr, [...]
[...] Комиссии ООН по правам человека резолюции (через Radley Balko) с Египтом. При этом, профессор Терли пишет: [...]