Defamation (Insulting) of Religion ...is now a Human Rights Violation?

GENEVA (Reuters) - A United Nations forum on Thursday passed a resolution condemning "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation, despite wide concerns that it could be used to justify curbs on free speech in Muslim countries.

Earlier this week, 180 secular, religious and media groups from around the world urged diplomats to reject the resolution which they said "may be used in certain countries to silence and intimidate human rights activists, religious dissenters and other independent voices" and ultimately restrict freedoms.

Full Article Here

This is just great news ... more restrictions on what little freedoms we have ... does this mean anything for ATS? this is a violation of freedom of speech in my opinion and i'm even religious (my views, please don't bring them into your posts) and i think this is outrageous, everyone has the right to their own opinion ...

Religion was created by humans to better control the minds of it's subjects. The domination of mind is the key to any religious movement.

IMO, religion is the worst poison humanity has ever been confronted with, but it was a necessary poison for people were not able to think for themselves.

But now, with awareness and consciousness rising around the globe, religions are on the decline. And it's a good thing. Faith is domination on your own mind.

This article is just another example of an attempt to dominate the minds of humans.

reply to post by baseball101


Ut, oh. Does this mean the UN will attempt to shut down sickipedia.org?
second line

reply to post by baseball101


Like I said months ago, the UN along with Share Intl will usher in this new TEACHER and will make religions banned. It's begun...

All proscriptions against hate speech are very bad, they are assaults against the power of reason, and they place some individual judgments in a position of power over the equivalent judgments made by others without any actual intellectual justification (that I have ever heard).
Hate speech should be as widely considered sacred as the right to freedom of religion.
This can be more easily recognized when it comes to this issue of hate speech against religions...Many persons have decided quietly that, to put it bluntly, not all religions are created equal, and that some religions as a practical matter are more troublesome and hostile to non-group-members than others (and if you don't believe me and say that that's stereotyping, give me six months and a small stipend and I bet I could start up a religion that could be almost universally recognized as trouble and not worthy of the protections extended to the religions of others). Thus in a typical PC let's-pretend irony, people fear that by noticing or commenting upon the pockets of pre-existing hatred or criminality among adherents of some religion, they can be accused of hate speech when they are expressing their observations with cool neutrality.
Hate speech, if it is factually incorrect, will be refuted when it is presented.
And if it is factually correct, why should it not be said? This is how discourse advances knowledge in all human endeavors.
And as to your question of how this new religious hate speech bit will affect ATS...ATS is already miserably weak, conventional, unexamined and bourgeois on this one topic of hate speech...I think they will do whatever they are supposed to, as soon as they can figure out whatever that is, so as not to damage the commercial potential of the site as an income-generating property. Which is their right, actually. So.