1. BBC 'too scared to allow jokes about Islam'

Comment #154416 by jbath on April 3, 2008 at 7:43 am

sidelined (comment 3)
Source of muslim jokes: http://www.soundingoff.co.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=18

One nice one: Guy goes into sex shop and asks for an inflatable doll. Assistant asks him whether he wants a Christian one or a Muslim one. Customer asks what's the difference. Assistant explains that you need a pump for the Christian doll, but the Muslim one blows itself up.

Please indulge my unnecesarry wit. I will not keep my mouth shut in order to appease a group of ill-informed and violent opponents to freedom of speech.

2. Thy will be done

Comment #154362 by jbath on April 3, 2008 at 6:20 am

DavidONE

Do you also "[speak] out in objection to this at every opportunity" when it is a muslim?

If, like me, you have some greater hesitation when it comes to standing against muslims, then I wonder if our priorities here are somewhat misplaced.

Maybe we ought to be concentrating on ensuring that ALL religions and not just Christian have a role within the areas of society which we believe should be wholly secular.

3. Thy will be done

Comment #154343 by jbath on April 3, 2008 at 5:56 am

Talking from and about the UK for the time being:

Surely, as long as prayers are said in the Houses of Commons and Lords, at almost all major Royal and other civil events, we stand little chance in changing this position in humble little local council meetings.

We need someone within their highest ranks to challenge this position. Perhaps Prince Charles?

The chances of that are so low it is hardily worth conjecturing for the time being. However, I suppose that the more letters that arrive on MP's and significant leaders' desks regarding this issue, the more people might come out of the closet and support the cause for removing religion not only from meetings but from the definition of what it is to be British.

My only fear here relates to nature's abhorrence of a vacuum: rip away Christian superstition and rights and we may leave a way in for Islam - a thing which I fear much more than the continuance of CofE silliness.

Perhaps an atheist Churchill figure will arise in government and lead us towards rationality and balance.

A bridge too far....

4. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #154005 by jbath on April 2, 2008 at 11:31 am

al-rawandi

Just checked out the link to which you referred (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm) and I would urge everyone to look at this.

Brilliant.

thanks

Joe

5. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #154001 by jbath on April 2, 2008 at 11:22 am

al-rawandi

You are an ever-present source of wisdom.
Do you have any objection to breaking your atheist code and being worshipped and adored just a little?

Joe

6. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153999 by jbath on April 2, 2008 at 11:19 am

THE KORAN

I am flipping through an online copy of the koran (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html) and wonder if anyone out there has ever compiled a list of the verses which clearly reveal the violent and non-democratic reality of the muslim faith?
If not, perhaps I may trawl through it myself and compile same.

It would be a useful tool to have - i.e. a list of the true beliefs that run counter to all the milk-toast obfuscation that pours from the mouths of the muslim clerics when they try to convince the uninformed listener that theirs is a religion of balance and fairness to all.

I would appreciate opinions.

Joe

7. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153930 by jbath on April 2, 2008 at 8:23 am

al-rawandi

I would be interested in picking your brain.
Do you have the personal courage to do something which would cause muslims to threaten your life? Something like saying "Mohammed is not the prophet; he's a very naughty boy" or even more extreme?

I ask this because I cannot shake a personal hesitation in totally standing up for my belief in my right to say anything. Perhaps, if I, you and many other believers in free speech are afraid of testing our right to call any supposed prophet or imaginary god whatever we want, then this might account for the World-wide hesitation on the part of most political representatives to do likewise. I use the UN as merely one example of this.

Thoughts?

8. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153924 by jbath on April 2, 2008 at 8:03 am

Comment #153898 by howtoplayalone on April 2, 2008 at 7:37 am

Watch this if you haven't seen it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhWgZu6tcZU

I do not understand why the Israeli representative should have be able to say what he wishes. It is shocking that the President did not address the factual issues raised.

I do not know much about what has been discussed in previous sessions, but if there is no condemnation of other nations' atrocities but only of those alleged by the Israelis, then this is replorable.

9. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153909 by jbath on April 2, 2008 at 7:46 am

Comment #152990 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 8:01 pm

"We dreamed up the hate crime laws in the late 1980s/early 1990s cuz we wanted to go after some really annoying pricks: the Holocost deniers, HIV positive haters, gay bashers, and nationalist thugs...Well, now we get to see how it feels when the tables are turned. Now we're the annoying pricks."

I have to agree with you - we are reaping our own whirlwind.

For one, I think I would have voted against the 1980/90's hate crime laws on the basis that a stupid idea eventually proves itself to be stupid in a free society. Nazis who denied the halocaust in the light of freely-available evidence for the halocaust would only attract people who did not wish to be rational and undertake their own research.

Those sort of people exist everywhere and only through the increase in the ease of access to information (oh wonderful internet!) will their number decline. Perhaps...

However, in a society where there is no freedom of speech, there would be no ability to discern the truth from lies. We are in a middle-state in the UK where interested parties control how much access to information we have and how much freedom of speech we have. Unless we acknowledge the slippery slope that we are on with respect to freedom of speech, we will not be able to redress the balance and protect AT ALL COSTS total freedom of speech. And I'm not forgetting the US here. I believe that the Phelps ("The most hated family in America?") have the right to shock and hurt grieving relatives of dead soldiers with their cruel homophobic chants. I utterly and totally disagree with them, but if we want to have a society in which we can be be totally free to say what we want, we just have to damn well put up with the loonies and grow tougher skins.

10. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153886 by jbath on April 2, 2008 at 7:18 am

mmurray's post no.36!!

I thought that I was at my peak of shock. I have to think again.

Just one of these 16 points would be bad enough; to find that one was piled on top of another is unbelievable.

I am personally afraid of the consequences of standing up against muslims that advocate blind violence against any dissenting voices; yet I am not afraid of standing up against this level of dangerous and cowardly stupidity in supposedly educated representatives of the UN countries.

If our "democratic" nations falls into the hands of the muslim extremists then we have only ourselves to blame.

It's time to stand up together and demand that our leaders protect our democratic right to lampoon Mohammed as much as we wish. They would be the first to defend Monty Python and the like for being able to lampoon Chrsitianity.

Imagine a country where the members of the Monty Python team were publically executed for making jokes about Brian (Jesus, Mohammed or whoever) not being the Messiah but being a naughty boy? It appears as though this reality is upon us.

I would urge Mr Dawkins to organise an online petition which clearly states that the undersigned do not agree with what the UN stated in its 16 points and that we all should be standing up for the right to criticise and lampoon any religion or representative of a religion that we wish.

11. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153856 by jbath on April 2, 2008 at 6:50 am

The resolution expresses "grave concern at the serious recent instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media."

Another victim-less "crime"?

It's okay for every member/group within society to be attacked except for religious people?

We would all benefit from lobbying our MP's to stand up and demand freedom of speech on all and every subject. It is by being lampooned and/or shamed in our lives by the public at large that we learn how a society thinks and, thereby, what we can do to educate and improve that society. If we are incapable of expressing opinions then there is a worrying possibility of reversing much of the positive social and technological developments that we pride ourselves on being associated with.

12. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153842 by jbath on April 2, 2008 at 6:36 am

Comment 17
Reading the International Herald Tribune article, I note it quotes:

"" The EU said, "International human rights law protects primarily individuals in their exercise of their freedom of religion or belief, not religions or beliefs as such." ""

Interesting then that countries adbstained from a vote which overturns this very premise of the EU. Surely none of the EU members abstained? Oh sure!

13. Wicked untruths from the Church

Comment #149251 by jbath on March 25, 2008 at 10:22 am

The idea that conscience (when solely related to religious beliefs) is sufficient excuse for an MP to kick up a fuss about this Bill leaves me cold. It has, indeed, led me to question whether all MP's in this country should be vetted for unfounded religious beliefs before they are allowed to take office, much in the same way as they are vetted for a criminal record. For me, the idea that an MP should try to block such a fundamentally important piece of legislation on such trite and laughable grounds is far from amusing: It is this that is unconscionable and not the contents of the Bill.