UN calls for the return of blasphemy laws

[elfs]

The Organization of Islamic Conference has successfully cajoled the UN Commission for Human Rights to issue a non-binding statement calling on nations to pass laws banning the defamation of religion. The action is an explicit part of the OIC's ten-year plan to ensure that a majority of nations' laws are "harmonized" in such a way to ensure an Islamic Rennaisance by 2050.

The OIC is also explicit in its desire to cut down on "criticism by the West," which it sees as an attack on Islam and a brake on Islam's rightful expansion of the Ummah (Islamic Community) to all corners of the globe.

Say what you will about any religion, but they all deserve criticism. If they can't stand up to either examination or ridicule, then they're not ideas that deserve to persist.

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Perhaps, if the current Administration took "international law" more seriously (and approached it with some level of credibility), the OIC wouldn't have succeeded.

What if we took "international law" more seriously, and the blasphemy law passed ANYWAY? Would we not be in the position of either having to defy "international law," or violate our own Constitution?

Thankfully, we have a new Administration on the way, one that can at least begin to reverse the disaster the last eight years have subjected us to. No doubt a re-examination of our position towards international law will be part of that massive job of damage repair.

Unless Obama means to continue ignoring "international law," wouldn't this "reversal" imply that America would have to obey the anti-blasphemy law?

I don't think he will try to enforce the anti-blasphemy law in America, but that's what a more rigorous adherence to international law would force him to do, wouldn't it?

[nbarnes.livejournal.com]

What if we took "international law" more seriously, and the blasphemy law passed ANYWAY? Would we not be in the position of either having to defy "international law," or violate our own Constitution?

What if the sky were purple and it was assumed that we'd be able to tell the Messiah when she came back by her purple skin?

The fact is that the US has spent 8 years pissing all over the UN. The Bush Administration's total disdain for international diplomacy more or less ensured that someone we didn't get along with would step into the power vacuum.

The US is a very powerful country. The UN isn't in a position to force us to do anything (fairly obviously, or they'd be doing it on Iraq, global warming, the ICC, our recently appalling violations of the Geneva Conventions and related articles, and other issues). Despite the best efforts of some in our country, we are still well-regarded enough amongst the better developed and more powerful countries of the world that we can, in fact, tell the UN to take a hike on this issue with basically no repercussions.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Ok ... now examine your own argument.

You are implicitly arguing that it is a bad thing that America, under Bush, has (in your view) violated treaties and "international law" (*). This is obvious by the fact that you refer to our actions as "pissing all over the UN."

Given that, then you probably wish that we obeyed international law more stringently. Am I right?

If America followed your prescription, then -- if the UN outlawed blasphemy, we would have no choice but to go along with it.

You are suffering some cognitive dissonance, I imagine, when the "international community" demands something that you don't want!

===
(*) What "international law" are we violating on global warming, given that we never ratified the Kyoto Treaty?

[nbarnes.livejournal.com]

Consider carefully the distinction between 'engagement' and 'capitulation'. It is a distinction that is critical to effective practice of international diplomacy, and it seems that you're having some trouble with it.

For example, you ask me, 'What "international law" are we violating on global warming, given that we never ratified the Kyoto Treaty?' I never said that we were violating international law. The opinion of the other large, industrialized, powerful countries of the world is not law, but it is something that we should consider in our decision making none the less. On the other hand, even if this proposal out of the Commission for Human Rights had the force of international law (which it does not), we are better off simply ignoring it than making a big deal out of it; protestations are for the weak. We are strong. If they want to stamp their feet and complain that we aren't doing as they say, that's all the better for our reputation and the worse for theirs; unenforceable demands never make you look good (this is why Bush's frequent blustery rhetoric and saber rattling is so counterproductive).

I am suffering no cognitive dissonance at all. I support the idea that the US should engage heavily with the other nations of the world, via the UN and in other ways, and seek to leverage our vast practical power in ways that make other countries regard us as a valuable ally and friend, rather than a country that is often opposed to their goals and as a potential adversary. This is a very practical and realistic goal, even when one combines it with also feeling that we shouldn't toss out the underpinnings of our free and open society because a much smaller and weaker group of countries say we hurt their feelings.