What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
555 Comments
- oriondr, on 03/27/2009, -55/+642***** religions, I don't have to respect them, I just have to let idiots practice them. Why is that so hard?
- Pasaris, on 03/28/2009, -16/+340We just took a step backwards.
- Fortississimo, on 03/28/2009, -12/+274This is totally atrocious and an obvious ruse to silence critics of Islam. How could they possible rationalize the criminalization of free speech?
- Hetman, on 03/28/2009, -30/+269***** Islam. Freedom of speech trumps any religious belief. I do not have the right to stop you from practicing your religion, but I do have the right to tell you that it is not fact, and it never will be fact. Go blow yourself and if you have time afterwards, give some rights to your women. Independent women are way more sexy than ones treated like slaves.
- Paktu, on 03/28/2009, -8/+205I wonder if Muslim nations who signed this will now be prosecuting people in their countries who make anti-Jewish statements?
Call it a hunch, but somehow I just don't see that happening. - keraneuology, on 03/28/2009, -7/+200You just violated the human rights of billions.
- Velly, on 03/28/2009, -7/+174I suppose this means all the Scientology followers and whatnot will also be using this law....
- FieroRumor, on 03/27/2009, -19/+173We should not give into the fundamentalists pressure to censor every criticism of them, but rather try courage nature to take its course and slowly let secular values eat their religion up.
You have to earn my respect, and these guys do not even come close. - LilJimmyNordin, on 03/28/2009, -11/+141***** billions.
- wannaBdug, on 03/27/2009, -31/+144Religion is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on freedom is what should of been printed.
- tsjirp, on 03/28/2009, -7/+118This is one sad day for humanity.
- terrorpin, on 03/28/2009, -1/+108Human rights have jumped the shark.
- GaltShrugged, on 03/28/2009, -4/+110Religions don't have rights, people do.
"It is individuals who have rights, not religions," Ottawa's representative told the body. "Canada believes that to extend (the notion of) defamation beyond its proper scope would jeopardize the fundamental right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of expression on religious subjects." - ronshubby, on 03/28/2009, -10/+115Bizarre. Special protection for ideas that include fairy stories about creation and justification for warmongers, wife-beaters and terrorists? And I'm not just talking about Muslims here.
Once you put irrational beliefs and respect for humanity on even footing, you inherently degrade your respect for humanity. - poidh, on 03/28/2009, -10/+102Although non-binding, this is rather serious.
The point of this resolution is to make it harder for Western countries to resist the advancing jihad. After all, how can you stop something that you are not allowed to talk about? What will happen, if adopted, is that aspects of sharia law will creep into the judicial systems of non-Muslim countries so that "parallel societies" will spring up. As an example, look at the UK: although bigamy is illegal, Muslim men with multiple wives are now allowed to claim extra benefits (non-Muslims cannot do this), family disputes within Muslim families can now be settled by sharia courts, with the offending women often being sent to Pakistan to be murdered.
From the article, it's worth noticing words like "Islamophobia". There is no such things as Islamophobia, since a phobia is an irrational fear. There is nothing irrational about being afraid of an ideology which mandates subjugation, rape, enslavement, forced conversion and death for non-Muslims. - inactive, on 03/28/2009, -15/+87***** RELIGION, PERIOD!!
- gilbes, on 03/28/2009, -3/+70In Muslim countries they burned down American embassies because a Dane drew an accurate rendering of the well known pedophile Mohammed.
How exactly could free speech be an more "curbed" in that world. - michaelpinto, on 03/28/2009, -27/+88With a few notable exceptions most organized religions are a violation of women's rights. If we're ever going to advance gender equality we need to regulate organized religion...
- cupholder, on 03/28/2009, -17/+77Ah. Religion.
The neverending retard machine. - Khast, on 03/28/2009, -1/+57Oh yeah, great... this kind of thing is the Scientologist's wet dream...
- inactive, on 03/28/2009, -9/+64@FTLJohnson
Making fun of religions is not a problem, the idea of religion is ***** retarded and the religious deserve to be taunted...repeatedly. - draculthemad, on 03/28/2009, -3/+55They can declare it all they want.
They still have to sit down and take the damned test that quizzes their knowledge of established science, not what they 'believe'. - DrSnugglebunny, on 03/28/2009, -4/+53Run, Richard Dawkins, run for the hills my friend!
- inactive, on 03/28/2009, -17/+60Deny it all you want but anyone who is not brainwashed and paying attention knows that Christian philosophy is more like radical Islamic fundamentalism than most realize. They are two sides of the same coin:
They both share the same attitude regarding women. They believe women should be subservient to men. Accomplished women are threatening to them. They work to prevent equality between the sexes. Women shouldn't be allowed to wield power, whether it's driving a car or piloting an F-18.
Both are hard-liners on crime and punishment. Arabs cut off hands and behead people. It's not that extreme with conservatives, but they also believe in harsh punishment in the name of justice and to send a warning to future wrong-doers. Conservatives believe in the death penalty and long prison sentences.
Both are isolationists. They are suspicious of people of different nationalities, ethnicities, and religion. They exhibit xenophobia. They use religion as a means of distinguishing self from non-self, friend from enemy. Foreigners are always suspect.
They are traditionalists. They cherish what already exists and are wary of new ideas. There may be inefficiencies and injustices with the current system, but they don't want to rock the boat. New ideas are blasphemy. Progressives are looked down upon.
They want religion to be the heart of government. They don't want a separation of church and state. Laws should be based on religious teachings. Religious leaders should be in charge of the country.
Look in the mirror Christians. Today's radical Islamic fundamentalist is really yesterday's Christian. - PhilMoskowitz, on 03/28/2009, -3/+43How about defamation of goat petting? People always tease me about my hobby.
This is just ridiculous. I normally defend the UN, but it seems they're trying to embarrass themselves into obsolescence. - giveer, on 03/28/2009, -6/+43'Should of' is a serious affront to grammar leading to a restriction of logic is what should have been printed.
- inactive, on 03/28/2009, -6/+43I've never liked the UN. Fortunately, you are not required to obey their "laws".
- oxdeltaxo, on 03/28/2009, -1/+3813 Abstentions?
How ***** hard is it to vote NO!?!?!?! - imsocool123, on 03/28/2009, -7/+42The U.N has finally completely lost its mind. Can you name any positive accomplishment by the U.N. for the last 15 years?
- Chooxo, on 03/28/2009, -0/+35As they said in South Park: It's MUSLIMS who can't depict Muhammed. Everyone else should be able to do whatever the heck they want.
- HerRedRing, on 03/28/2009, -22/+54Everyone's default mode is atheism. Parents converting their children to religion can be considered child abuse.
Saying there is an invisible man in the sky who watches over you is a part of human rights? Really? Really?! Are you FKNG kidding me? - JesusSaidSo, on 03/28/2009, -0/+32Yep... and all those Westboro nutjobs.
- Nishnabotna, on 03/28/2009, -0/+30It ain't US law...
- nick01584, on 03/28/2009, -10/+40people are forgetting that religion isn't a race. it's an idea, a particularly vile and stupid idea which needs to be killed with fire. they are taking away the ability to criticize something that is wrong on the basis it was built. *shakes head in disgust*
- aurorion, on 03/28/2009, -8/+38How do you define a "religion"?
FTA: It called on states to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are protected, to reinforce laws "to deny impunity" for those exhibiting intolerance of ethnic and religious minorities, and "to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs."
I am defining a new religion (I will come up with a really old looking book full of stupid things later.) which says that the symbol of a star is a sacred symbol that should never be drawn by humans. So should the "star" be "protected"? Should everyone in the world be banned from drawing or reproducing in any way the symbol of a star so that my religious beliefs are "protected"?
My religion says that "Batman" is god and should not be drawn or depicted in any way. So should all Batman comics be banned? (Islam considers depiction of "Allah" a crime - my religion says the same thing about "Batman".)
How many idiots have to believe in a stupid idea for it to be considered as a "religion"? One? A hundred? A million?
So should each type of schizophrenia be considered a religion, provided a certain number of people are affected by it? - Karmashock, on 03/28/2009, -4/+32The UN human rights commission is irrelevant... it's been irrelevant for many years now. Paying attention to it is a waste of our collective time.
It has only what credibility we give it. There no reason to give it any. It accomplishes nothing good and has been co-opted by crazy people. So let them have their crazy club... but make a point of filing all their statements in the circular drop box (trash can). So much of the UN these days is just rabid nonsense. With every fevered proclamation they undermine the credibility of the whole organization... and it's already too late... they have none left. - Chooxo, on 03/28/2009, -2/+30That's a straw-man, keraneuology.
People DO have the right to declare a belief in creationism in public schools and nobody said otherwise. - stubear, on 03/28/2009, -4/+31No it is not. You do not need to be religious to have morals and values. You simply need to have a conscience. In fact, one could argue that secular values are far more humane because they are based on the inclusionary rights of humans not on the exclusionary tactics of religion.
- honeybrass, on 03/28/2009, -2/+29Those who make human rights laws are just scared ***** of those who won't obey them. This is a law that will only hurt ordinary peoples right to free speech. and protect nut cases from thinking about what they are saying first.
- bsmang, on 03/28/2009, -13/+40Lol, this is silly. All religions are equally and absolutely stupid. There. I said it.
- kaelyiesta, on 03/28/2009, -7/+34The UN rarely goes any other way. This is exactly why our sovereignty should not be given up piece by piece to a larger unaccountable authority. It's all that much harder to resist.
As for this specific nonbinding resolution, it's easy to show that that are some inconsistencies that cannot be resolved:
"...to reinforce laws "to deny impunity" for those exhibiting intolerance of ethnic and religious minorities, and "to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs."
Suppose I create a minority religion that is based on the premise that defames other religious minorities. Suppose my religion includes free speech.
There are numerous ways to show the contradictions in this resolution, but it's easiest to just say that it's not possible to allow for laws against offensive speech, because it begs the question: offensive to who? If the answer is 'everyone' then the whole world would likely be forced to be silent. If everyone is not included, then where is the tolerance for minority positions?
Laws against harming others can only work for 'active' harm. Being offended by something someone does that isn't directly harming your property cannot be illegal because then anyone could have right to tell you to do whatever he pleased so he is not offended. It simply doesn't work. - Digger1123, on 03/28/2009, -5/+31***** the UN.
- nick01584, on 03/28/2009, -5/+30for deliberately being a ******. not for stomping on a religioin
- Tarnum, on 03/28/2009, -15/+39It's Ok, as long as the Muslims respect my human rights. And my wife's human rights.
But I don't think they will. Do you? - inactive, on 03/28/2009, -3/+26Spoken like a true brainwashed fanatic
Heres our "debate" so far. I list out historical facts and lack of evidence and you return with Bible verses.
Sorry thats NOT a debate. - Leviathan84, on 03/28/2009, -2/+24The resolution was submitted in large by Pakistan ( officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan )
Pakistan is a semi-presidential federal democratic republic with Islam as the state religion.
Its not a secular country. - chrisduser, on 03/28/2009, -0/+22Well said Canada.
- SisyphusFragmnt, on 03/28/2009, -19/+40Thanks Islam!
- Meep3D, on 03/28/2009, -1/+22Surely there is enough FSM acolytes that eating pasta should be banned?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 566 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialoggs, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is