Thursday, June 19, 2008 | Reason : Wingnut News | print version

Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

by Daily Times

Thanks to Broiled Jogger for the link.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\06\19\story_19-6-2008_pg7_6

Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

* UN body says only religious scholars should be allowed to discuss
matters of faith

GENEVA: Muslim countries have won a battle to prevent Islam from being criticised during debates by the UN Human Rights Council. Religions deserve special protection because any debate about faith is bound to be "very complex, very sensitive and very intense", council President Doru-Romulus Costea said Wednesday.

Scholars: Only religious scholars should be allowed to discuss matters of faith, he told journalists in Geneva.

While Costea's ban applies to all religions, it was prompted by Muslim countries complaining about references to Islam.

Costea issued his "presidential ruling" on Monday during the eighth meeting of the council's 47 members, which do not include the United States. The ruling will not affect findings by the council's experts, just its chamber debates.

On Monday Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested attempts by a humanist group to link Islam to human rights abuses such as female genital mutilation and so-called honour killing of women. The interventions sparked a heated debate which threatened to sour the mood of the meeting. The council's resolutions carry no legal weight but are intended to throw a spotlight on governments that abuse their citizens.

"This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it," Costea ruled after an emergency break to calm the situation.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Thursday, June 19, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 299 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #196364 by Fuller on June 19, 2008 at 7:54 pm

Urgh.

Other Comments by Fuller

2. Comment #196365 by black wolf on June 19, 2008 at 7:55 pm

There's no need to discuss religious matters in depth at all. There's also no need to respect any opinion that its holder refuses to discuss. I think Islamic countries should unite (they want that, don't they?). The less of them there are, the less they can spit in the face of the world by abusing the UN. If the UN becomes the mouthpiece of those idiots, then I say stop respecting the UN. Let's form a new council, article 1 reading "Opinions that its holder refuses to discuss will not be respected."

Edit: Article 2: "Opinions based on scriptural authority will be accepted only if the author of said scripture presents it personally."

Other Comments by black wolf

3. Comment #196366 by melsdr on June 19, 2008 at 7:55 pm

This is complete BS. The title of Sam Harris's article 'Losing Our Spines To Save Our Necks' seems very appropriate here.
It is exactly this pandering that the scientologists have picked up on.

Other Comments by melsdr

4. Comment #196367 by TeraBrat on June 19, 2008 at 8:02 pm

The UN and Islam strike again.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

5. Comment #196370 by Ubiquitous Che on June 19, 2008 at 8:09 pm

And Jefferson wept.

Other Comments by Ubiquitous Che

6. Comment #196371 by eclampusvitus on June 19, 2008 at 8:11 pm

I hereby declare myself a religious scholar.

Islam is a worldwide problem, and has the potential to incite a worldwide conflagration.

ECV

Other Comments by eclampusvitus

7. Comment #196372 by secondsoprano on June 19, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Surely this can't be true.

Other Comments by secondsoprano

8. Comment #196373 by alovrin on June 19, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Only religious scholars should be allowed to discuss matters of faith,

Uh huh that'll work.... perhaps they could draw up a schematic of the other world/realms/ whatfuckingever, as well.
Oh no, thats right they cant, they'll be moving their lower jaws at the bidding of their deity.

Other Comments by alovrin

9. Comment #196376 by black wolf on June 19, 2008 at 8:21 pm

Great. The UN Human Rights Council can now no longer comment on widespread human rights violations, including mutilation, torture, rape, the abduction of civilians, the use of child soldiers and massacres.
How so?
see LRA

All it takes is one guy claiming it's a religious topic.

Other Comments by black wolf

10. Comment #196380 by AoClay on June 19, 2008 at 8:29 pm

What's complex about it?

Other Comments by AoClay

11. Comment #196381 by Shire Brooks on June 19, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Hey guys, didn't you hear? The debate was souring the mood of the meeting! We can't have that! All meetings on grievous human rights abuses must be sweet and fluffy and fun!

Other Comments by Shire Brooks

12. Comment #196382 by 8teist on June 19, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Would there be an organization more useless than the UN ? other than any church group or religion ,that is

Other Comments by 8teist

13. Comment #196383 by Brian English on June 19, 2008 at 8:38 pm

It was only a few months ago that the role of the Human Rights Council's special rapporteur was changed from watching Human right's violations to making sure religions weren't insulted. The Human Rights Council has been stacked with muslim delegates for years now. They've changed the purpose of the council to suit themselves.....

Other Comments by Brian English

14. Comment #196384 by Mr. Forrest on June 19, 2008 at 8:43 pm

What a useless organization the U.N. is rapidly becoming. So much waffle, so little substance.

Other Comments by Mr. Forrest

15. Comment #196387 by adk on June 19, 2008 at 8:48 pm

Uh oh, wouldn't want to offend, or anything. Seriously, does the UN do ANYthing nowadays?

Other Comments by adk

16. Comment #196389 by black wolf on June 19, 2008 at 8:51 pm

What's complex about it?

It's complex when there's a risk that people will disagree without providing evidence.

Other Comments by black wolf

17. Comment #196390 by Goldy on June 19, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Too much protectionism is only going to result in more insults :-) Besides, did the US listen to any UN resolution? Israel (and given most of the resolutions againt Israel are from, errrr, Muslim countries)? Does anyone think China will give a toss, or India?

Other Comments by Goldy

18. Comment #196391 by OverUsedChewToy on June 19, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Muslims: "Reality hurts my poor walnut brain :("

U.N: "There, there, it's not your fault that Islam violates pretty much every human right on a constant basis globally. I'll shut those nasty, nasty human rights advocates up"

Other Comments by OverUsedChewToy

19. Comment #196394 by mordacious1 on June 19, 2008 at 9:15 pm

What a bunch of piss ant prairie pups.

Other Comments by mordacious1

20. Comment #196396 by GBart on June 19, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Apparently the UN Human Rights Council doesn't give a shit about human rights. Ironic that they should be so named...

Time for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to start appointing official religous scholars or priests. Anyone who declares himself/herself a religious scholar now is within his/her rights to criticize any religion or cult.

Other Comments by GBart

21. Comment #196398 by melsdr on June 19, 2008 at 9:31 pm

I live among a muslim majority, and it is true that most cultural Muslims do not agree with many of the practices for which the Religion is often criticised (obviously, the died in the wool faith-heads are a different story). But even completely non-practicing, beer drinking, non-halal eating, 9-11 condemming 'muslims' still get VERY red in the face when you actually blame Islam for these problems. To be fair though, they are often more open to discussion than the bleeding heart western 'liberels' on the same subject. What was it that I heard Dawkins say once, 'Some peoples minds are so open that their brains are in danger of falling out!'. Too True

Other Comments by melsdr

22. Comment #196401 by black wolf on June 19, 2008 at 9:44 pm

I'm glad that the EU takes a much clearer and firmer stance:
Resolution 1464 (2005)1
Women and religion in Europe

1. In the lives of many European women, religion continues to play an important role. Whether they are believers or not, most women are affected in one way or another by the attitude of different faiths towards women, directly or through their traditional influence on society or the State.

2. This influence is seldom benign: women's rights are often curtailed or violated in the name of religion. While most religions teach equality of women and men before God, they attribute different roles to women and men on earth. Religiously motivated gender stereotypes have conferred upon men a sense of superiority which has led to discriminatory treatment of women by men and even violence at their hands.

3. At one end of the spectrum lie the extreme violations of women's human rights such as so-called "honour" crimes, forced marriages and female genital mutilation, which â€" although still rare in Europe â€" are on the rise in some communities.

4. At the other end are more subtle and less spectacular forms of intolerance and discrimination which are much more widespread in Europe â€" and which can be just as effective in achieving the subjection of women, such as the refusal to put into question a patriarchal culture which holds up the role of wife, mother and housewife as the ideal, and the refusal to adopt positive measures in favour of women (for example, in parliamentary elections).

5. All women living in Council of Europe member states have a right to equality and dignity in all areas of life. Freedom of religion cannot be accepted as a pretext to justify violations of women's rights, be they open or subtle, legal or illegal, practised with or without the nominal consent of the victims â€" women.

6. It is the duty of the member states of the Council of Europe to protect women against violations of their rights in the name of religion and to promote and fully implement gender equality. States must not accept any religious or cultural relativism of women's human rights. They must not agree to justify discrimination and inequality affecting women on grounds such as physical or biological differentiation based on or attributed to religion. They must fight against religiously motivated stereotypes of female and male roles from an early age, including in schools.

7. The Parliamentary Assembly thus calls on the member states of the Council of Europe to:

7.1. fully protect all women living in their country against all violations of their rights based on or attributed to religion by:

7.1.1. putting into place and enforcing specific and effective policies to fight all violations of women's right to life, to bodily integrity, freedom of movement and free choice of partner, including so-called "honour" crimes, forced marriage and female genital mutilation, wherever and by whomever they are committed, however they are justified, and regardless of the nominal consent of the victim; this means that freedom of religion is limited by human rights;

7.1.2. refusing to recognise foreign family codes and personal status laws based on religious principles which violate women's rights, and ceasing to apply them on their own soil, renegotiating bilateral treaties if necessary;

7.2. take a stand against violations of women's human rights justified by religious or cultural relativism everywhere in the world, including in international fora such as the United Nations or the Inter-Parliamentary Union;

7.3. guarantee the separation between the Church and the State which is necessary to ensure that women are not subjected to religiously inspired policies and laws (for example, in the area of family, divorce, and abortion law);

7.4. ensure that freedom of religion and respect for culture and tradition are not accepted as pretexts to justify violations of women's rights, including when underage girls are forced to submit to religious codes (including dress codes), their freedom of movement is curtailed or their access to contraception is barred by their family or community;

7.5. where religious education is permitted in schools, ensure that this teaching is in conformity with gender equality principles;

7.6. take a stand against any religious doctrine which is antidemocratic or disrespectful of human rights, especially women's rights, and refuse to allow such doctrines to influence political decision making;

7.7. actively promote respect of women's rights, equality and dignity in all areas of life when engaging in dialogue with representatives of different religions, and work on achieving full gender equality in society.

Other Comments by black wolf

23. Comment #196403 by MelM on June 19, 2008 at 9:53 pm

I just found this item at the Atheist Media Blog. Pakistan hardly is fit to be on a "Human Rights Council"
Link: Muslim Youth Sentenced To Death For Blasphemy

Other Comments by MelM

24. Comment #196407 by keith on June 19, 2008 at 10:03 pm

Costea issued his "presidential ruling" on Monday during the eighth meeting of the council's 47 members, which do not include the United States.

The Human Rights Council doesn't include the United States? Why is that?

Other Comments by keith

25. Comment #196409 by RamziD on June 19, 2008 at 10:20 pm

This makes me want to vomit.

At one time, the UN was a respectable organization.

Other Comments by RamziD

26. Comment #196410 by black wolf on June 19, 2008 at 10:26 pm

keith,
The US didn't join because China, Russia and Cuba are members. They were afraid that this would be just another inefficient council. It turns out they were pretty much right in demanding that members should strictly fulfill certain prerequisites.
Currently, a two-thirds majority is needed to exclude a country from the council. The seats are distributed according to regions (13 African, 13 Asian, 6 Eastern Europe, 8 Latin America and the Caribbean, 7 Western Europe and others), elected by the General Assembly.

Other Comments by black wolf

27. Comment #196411 by DalaiDrivel on June 19, 2008 at 10:42 pm

RamziD,

I recommend "Parliament of Men" by Paul Kennedy for a dispassionate account of the UN's history, as well as a brief synopsis of a possible future.

My own view is that the UN tries, it really does, but there have always been flaws.

I think the Human Rights Council need not earn disrespect for the present UN in its entirety.

As for this debacle, since religion has universal import, and every religion claims to impact the fate of every human being regardless of the faith, any person willing to confront (and subsequently embrace or reject) this claim and others, are, due to their interest and research, truly religious scholars.

Because of the universality of religion, which perhaps constitutes its very tyranny, the definition of religious scholar should be very broad indeed.

I'm not sure what the implications to this ruling are. I do not know what constitutes a religious scholar in the eyes of the UN, and what ramifications exist in the face of dissent. The UN is plenty weak and corrupt. Hopefully the rules will be frequently broken, and change forced, to uphold the very honesty our cultures desperately attempt and desperately need to retain for the survival of civilisation.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

28. Comment #196412 by Don_Quix on June 19, 2008 at 10:52 pm

If George Washington were still alive he could easily resolve this with his laser beam eyes.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

29. Comment #196420 by manimal on June 19, 2008 at 11:48 pm

ha..ha !! what is next ??
these Mullahs very well know that their religion can not stand any criticism. But I dont know why these idiots in the west are stooping infront of this fanatics ...
"God"help us !!!

Other Comments by manimal

30. Comment #196421 by Janus on June 19, 2008 at 11:54 pm

I don't think anything can be done to stop this trend. If the only problem was the Muslims, we'd have a chance, but Muslims are aided and protected by non-Muslims in the name of tolerance and moderation. Hell, even on this site there are several atheists who are effectively apologists for Islam whenever this kind of topic comes up.

Other Comments by Janus

31. Comment #196422 by hungarianelephant on June 19, 2008 at 11:59 pm

I'm glad that the EU takes a much clearer and firmer stance:
Resolution 1464 (2005)1

Are you kidding? If the EU took a clear and firm stance, it would hardly require the (elected) Parliament to petition the (unelected) Council to actually do something.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

32. Comment #196423 by 8teist on June 20, 2008 at 12:03 am

HA.... if the UN took a firm stance on anything ,they would prolapse their colons.

Other Comments by 8teist

33. Comment #196425 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 20, 2008 at 12:15 am

And so it goes. One more step towards criminalizing all discussion of Islam so the Jihad can advance unhindered.

HA.... if the UN took a firm stance on anything ,they would prolapse their colons.

Oh, but they do, 8teist. When it comes to condemning Israel, or defending international terrorism, or protecting child-rapists, the UN is right there.

It's just they are always wrong.

The Human Rights Council doesn't include the United States? Why is that?

keith it's because "UN Human Rights Commission" is a phrase like "the Religion of Peace" or "the Ministry of Truth". It's not even meaningless, it's the exact opposite of what it says.

On the bright if these maggots can do nothing in Darfur, or to stop the Khmer Rouge, or the genocide of East Timor, do you think they'll be able to stop people like me saying what we want about Islam? They're invited to try.

EDIT: My new slogan: 'Secceding from the UN: Is there any argument against it?'

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

34. Comment #196426 by Darwin's badger on June 20, 2008 at 12:16 am

Comment #196365 by black wolf on June 19, 2008 at 7:55 pm
There's no need to discuss religious matters in depth at all.

Quite. Richard's "Leprecology" comment is perfectly apt here.

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

35. Comment #196427 by Vaal on June 20, 2008 at 12:17 am

Utter bullshit. What is going on with the world?

If there is any subject it is religion which is most ripe for robust criticism about their appalling human rights record. Seems like the Muslims are desperate to stop any debate about their religion. What a complete farce. Who are these cretins that make these decisions? NOT on my behalf!!!!

Other Comments by Vaal

36. Comment #196428 by King of NH on June 20, 2008 at 12:21 am

To paraphrase Prof. Dawkins, "What in the holy f^%*ing h&#% is a religious scholar?"

Scholar - (noun) one who devotes serious study to a topic

Religious - (adjective) pulling shit out of one's ass and flinging it at people as a show of dominance

The two don't go together. It's an oxymoron.

Aside from that, if your religion condones FGM or Faith Healing for Children, or pre-teen polygamy, then your religion is NOT entitled to respect.

Other Comments by King of NH

37. Comment #196429 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 20, 2008 at 12:24 am

Have to disagree with you there King of NH, you can be a good religious scholar. You can study religious literature, comparative religion, influence, philosophical trends - the whole enchilada.

Vis a viz Islam, Ibn Warraq, Robert Spencer, Hugh FitzGerald, Ali Sina - they all qualify as good scholars.

It's the phrase 'theologian' that's a little strange.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

38. Comment #196434 by urn on June 20, 2008 at 12:38 am

Hey, maybe next, the UN will declare that only "religious scholars" are aloud to believe in religion...

One can dream right?

Other Comments by urn

39. Comment #196436 by crabsallover on June 20, 2008 at 12:49 am

the source http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\06\19\story_19-6-2008_pg7_6 is from the Pakistan Daily Times.

google "very complex, very sensitive and very intense" gives the International Herald Tribune (IHT) report:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/18/news/UN-GEN-UN-Rights-Council-Religion.php

The 2 UN videos cited by IHT show the decision by the President of UN Human Rights Council and the discussions of Egypt, Iran and Jordan, Slovenia, Canada:

From www.un.org/webcast

Video of U.N. rights council debate, part 1 (7 mins): http://tinyurl.com/4kn6ym

Video of U.N. rights council debate, part 2 (22 mins): http://tinyurl.com/3qgvgg

Other Comments by crabsallover

40. Comment #196438 by Steven Mading on June 20, 2008 at 12:55 am

How many of us didn't see this coming based on which countries were making up the UN human rights council now? When we found out who was on that council, many of us here complained and foretold that this kind of crap would happen. We were right.

The thing about being a religious scholar is that there's not much incentive to keep on studying the nuances of theology after you realize it's all bunk. It's like the article by PZ Myers called "The Courtier's Reply". Why would you spend a lot ot time studying exactly which color of fabric was used to make the Emperor's new nonexistant clothes? If they're not there, then they weren't even made from any cloth in the first place. So when people claim you must be a religious scholar first before saying anything bad about religion, it's just a thinly disguised attempt to put a filter in place that only allows those with pro-religious sentiments to comment. It's censoring by what position you take, rather than by how well researched it is. (Or by whether or not you are justified in your position, or whether it's true or not.)

Other Comments by Steven Mading

41. Comment #196440 by Steve Zara on June 20, 2008 at 1:09 am

I am not quite as concerned as others, and I think it is quite wrong to say that this means the entire UN is in decline. This is just one council, and has no legal weight.

I wonder if this couldn't be used as a precedent. We could say that only scholars of science discuss scientific matters (that would prevent the catholics spouting nonsense about condom safety, for example).

Also, does this mean that only scholars who are religious should discuss matters of faith? On this site we have people who are clearly experts on what people of faith say they believe, but who aren't religious.

It would have been better if it had just had been "scholars", because there are others who are experts on faith two - psychologists, neuroscientists.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

42. Comment #196443 by mordacious1 on June 20, 2008 at 1:28 am

crabsallover

Don't they have a treatment for that? Sounds yucky.

Other Comments by mordacious1

43. Comment #196444 by crabsallover on June 20, 2008 at 1:30 am

this is the 1 minute statement
rtsp://webcast.un.org/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/eighth/hrc080616pm2-orig.rm?start=00:04:19&end=00:05:28

from the Association for World Education, International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) (Joint statement) which led to the (7 minutes) points of order from Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Slovenia (for EU), Canada.
rtsp://webcast.un.org/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/eighth/hrc080616pm1-eng.rm?start=01:38:15&end=01:45:04

further analysis at HASSERS: http://hassers.blogspot.com/2008/06/muslim-countries-win-concession.html

Other Comments by crabsallover

44. Comment #196445 by Shane McKee on June 20, 2008 at 1:31 am

Surely the response from the free world should then be to declare that any *objections* that these people have on the basis of "faith" or "religious issues" are thereby null and void, and not a damn bit of notice should be taken of them.

Rather than a veto, these should be treated as surrender of any right to comment. That'd soon sort 'em.

Other Comments by Shane McKee

45. Comment #196446 by mordacious1 on June 20, 2008 at 1:34 am

Fanusi

Waiting for you to jump in on "It Doesn't Take an Einstein" thread.

Other Comments by mordacious1

46. Comment #196450 by FightingFalcon on June 20, 2008 at 1:58 am

At one time, the UN was a respectable organization.

When was that again?

EDIT: My new slogan: 'Secceding from the UN: Is there any argument against it?'

There sure isn't an argument against it. My slogan would be something like:

"US out of UN! UN out of NYC!"

What do you think? =)

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

47. Comment #196452 by notsobad on June 20, 2008 at 2:02 am

Fucking political correctness. Sometimes these always smiling always so correct people do more damage than dogmatic theists.

Other Comments by notsobad

48. Comment #196454 by irate_atheist on June 20, 2008 at 2:09 am

Usual comment applies.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

49. Comment #196455 by decius on June 20, 2008 at 2:11 am

Keith,

is yours a rhetorical question? I am sure that you are aware of the conflictual relationship between the U.S. and the U.N., as well as of the American unwillingness to abide by international law.

Other Comments by decius

50. Comment #196456 by FightingFalcon on June 20, 2008 at 2:14 am

is yours a rhetorical question? I am sure that you are aware of the conflictual relationship between the U.S. and the U.N., as well as of the American unwillingness to abide by international law.

We refuse to abide by law that would take away from our sovereignty. Certainly we would never allow a corrupt, decrepit and useless organization like the UN to overthrow the Republic and our Constitution.

At least we're open about our refusal to participate in SOME international treaties. Other countries just sign along and then privately throw them in the toilet.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next | Last