It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The United Nations tries to outlaw criticism of Islam

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
surprising , if someone hates judaisim (jews ) its hate crime and anti-semitism , but if Islam is hated ,its supported ,hypocrisy from ATS




posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Screw all religions including mine(Christianity). I have my beliefs in God/Christ and worship in my own way. Everything else is just a hypocritacal bunch of shmucks using religion as the basis of their self serving manipulatuion of the world laws for their own financial and moral prosperity. They all have Egos biger than the religion itself.

Just another corporation used to divide the masse and keep the inferior in power by manipulation of ideals and beliefs on the basis of morality. Yet their very reason for living is based on immorality. Greed,lust and power. All for the God they worship. MONEY.

The old Clint Eastwood movie states it best.

Hang 'Em High.......... All the treasonous immoral bastards, from organized religion to lawmakers coruptly governing our lives, should swing by their necks ..


[edit on 15/1/2009 by Revealation]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
In my opinion the UN can try to and does try to pass bogus resolutions as often as the want. They've pretty much been neutered, the US, China, and Russia picks and chooses what they will and will not follow, and for this case the US is in opposition to the proposal.....



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by sadchild01
 



Originally posted by sadchild01
surprising , if someone hates judaisim (jews ) its hate crime and anti-semitism , but if Islam is hated ,its supported ,hypocrisy from ATS


I do not think thats the case here. I think the issue is that Islamists want to get rid of freedom of speech when it deals with their religion.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Agent Styx]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
the spinelessness of your post is similiar to that of talking behind someone' back. I've always thought that making fun of people on the internet was akin to threatening them. Your declaration was extremely personal and said more than just "i don't agree with religion" it said "religious people are stupid". This of course must be because it has been proven that you're smarter than me right?


Well, I have no idea who you are, and I was making no judgements about intellect.

I was talking about my respect for the person, to be honest. It's nothing measurable, its just whether I feel that person's opinion is important to me.

If someone comes out, guns blazing, about how religious they are, it's weird, okay? Because ultimately, the sources for the religion are arbitrary (i.e. you were born in a Christian society, not Muslim, thus dictates your side in the next crusade) and created in "ancient times" when people clearly didn't know as much as they thought (aka the Babylonian concept of a domed Earth with the stars as a patchwork in it, etc, that made it into Judaism) and the general untrustworthiness of the story (God goes to madman A and reveals the truth. Said madman goes to Village X to spread the word, only everyone calls him a madman, and he is forced to leave with a few converts, the dejected idiots that the people have decided are mentalists too, eventually the prophet dies and now nobody can prove he didn't say this or that because he's dead, and you can't even ask him, thus it becomes legend, which in turn becomes "fact").

Do you get what I'm saying? The pretense is ridiculous. If I came to you saying how I was just tutored by a miracle-working son of God, he's dead so you can't meet him but I learned all his stuff so I'll teach you if you become my bitch, you'd tell me to get lost because I was crazy. So why the hell would you believe the same freaking story from someone a couple of milennia ago??

Anyone should be able to analyze the holes in this story and think "right, this is bull, and even if this is not bull, it isn't how it was originally given out, so it still means little because it's probably mostly bull".


Originally posted by heyoLol "the biggest difference is i have faith, you have evidence." I love how the evidence available today is somehow absolute. Scientists a hundred years ago thought the same. The evolution of science is just one incorrect conclusion after another until the correct one is reached.


Yes! That is it exactly! And religion is one incorrect conclusion that will never, ever, ever become correct, no matter how many idiots you brainwash with it!

The great thing about evidence is that it is a double-edged sword, that one can only be right if one is actually right (unlike religion, which is which one has more swords). If you are in the wrong, eventually it will be shown.


Originally posted by heyoEvolution is kind of irrelevant to me, it is more abiogenesis that i have a problem with (but that's beside my point.) So what proof do i have, as a layman, that correct conclusions are all at this point unarguable, and therefore 100% true?


You have no proof of electricity, but I think you probably aren't doubting Tesla when he put forward his theory on alternating current, are you? Ever seen an electron with your own eyes? Of course not. Almost everything you know will be based on the faith that someone else has done the research and that what they tell you is true, so lets not get silly and go down this road.

Our best bet is to go with the general inclinations of the scientific community as these are the fine minds that do actually spend their lives working this stuff out so I can play Quake 3 some more.


Originally posted by heyoAfter teh debacle of man-made global warming, during which scientists the world over denied even the possibility they were wrong, it has come to my attention that science is more about politics than science, just like organized religon is more about politics than the soul. If you can't see the faith in science, i don't really care it is quite evident to me, and that way of thinking has cleared up many aspects of the big picture for me.


Yes, lets not get started on Global Warming either...

I don't see how this disproves science, to be honest. Just because it's used by corrupt men to propagate their own power, it's not the fault of science. They'd do it if they lived in mud huts, if they could.


Originally posted by heyoAn example of faith would be the faith that our senses are able to detect all factors in an experiment, basically, if we can't see it, it's not there.


No, thats a fool's argument. I'm sure you can see why it would be foolish to say this, as I said above, most of the things you "know" you just take on faith, but at least there is some logical evidence-based reason to do so other than "God talks to me! Honest!!".



Originally posted by heyoHow can you possible say you don't judge for religion when you said anyone who is religious drops a notch or two in our book? What the hell kind of doublespeak are you selling here? The fact is you do judge religous people, because you think they're stupid. I then called you on it, then defended your right to do it as per the subject of the thread.


I did not say they are stupid, to repeat, I lose respect for them because all religious dogma is half-arsed, drug-addled clap-trap from a social reject from ancient times, whom the other ancient people also thought were full of it! It is pointless to judge religions as they are all alike: believe this, don't believe that, no if's no but's. Whats the point in judging a beauty contest for a bunch of turds, at the end of the day, all you'll choose is a beautiful-looking turd.


Originally posted by heyoI have no intent on a religous debate here,


He says, after the debate.


Originally posted by heyo just don't call me and everyone else religious stupid and then brag about how nonjudgemental you are. It's hypocrisy in a very clear manifestation. Hypocrisy is a true mark of an evil man, but blind hypocrisy is just dumb.


I was bragging about nothing, I did not call you stupid and I don't judge religions, only people.

You are just jumping to conclusions without really thinking about what i've been saying



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
I don't have a faith, I have nothing


You could have stopped your post right there and it would have been 100% accurate.

As for the OP: I file proposed "laws" such as this into the "Idiotic things I have no intention of following so I tend not to worry about them" category. They could come out tomorrow and say that verbal expression of anything against group XYZ is hereby outlawed and I'd probably go out of my way to spend as much time possible disparaging that group on a daily basis just to prove I can.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I hate to see yet another atheist vs. believer thread on ATS. I am relatively new here but I've seen at least 20 since I joined. Can't this discussion go in the "Faith and Spirituality" forum on BTS?

An atheist has a right to his or her views, and a believer has a right to theirs. I don't disrespect either because of their convictions.

The subject of the thread is the rightness or wrongness of the U.N. passing a law that bans any criticism of a certain world religion. All religions have been subject to criticism and sometimes even persecution through the ages. Why should Islam be given any special treatment? Yes, Muslims are offended and sometimes persecuted because of such criticism, but so are people of many faiths.

It's impractical and unethical to ban criticism or even disparagement of any religion above all others. No one religion, or even religion in general or atheism should be exempt from freedom of thought and speech.

When did the U.N. become controlled by Islam?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I think some of you guys need to understand that the reasons why such measures are passed is not because Muslims cry for it, but because it is designed to deliberately stir up racial tensions. It riles everyone up and the Muslims get blamed for something they didn't ask for.

I'm sure there are a lot of Muslims out there cringing at how this is going to pan out.




top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join