Religion and human rights
 
[L[Quote]] · 1845 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·
 

AT FIRST glance, the resolution on “religious defamation” adopted by the UN’s Human Rights Council on March 26th, mainly at the behest of Islamic countries, reads like another piece of harmless verbiage churned out by a toothless international bureaucracy. What is wrong with saying, as the resolution does, that some Muslims faced prejudice in the aftermath of September 2001? But a closer look at the resolution’s language, and the context in which it was adopted (with an unholy trio of Pakistan, Belarus and Venezuela acting as sponsors), makes clear that bigger issues are at stake.

The resolution says “defamation of religions” is a “serious affront to human dignity” which can “restrict the freedom” of those who are defamed, and may also lead to the incitement of violence. But there is an insidious blurring of categories here, which becomes plain when you compare this resolution with the more rigorous language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 in a spirit of revulsion over the evils of fascism. This asserts the right of human beings in ways that are now entrenched in the theory and (most of the time) the practice of liberal democracy. It upholds the right of people to live in freedom from persecution and arbitrary arrest; to hold any faith or none; to change religion; and to enjoy freedom of expression, which by any fair definition includes freedom to agree or disagree with the tenets of any religion.

In other words, it protects individuals—not religions, or any other set of beliefs. And this is a vital distinction. For it is not possible systematically to protect religions or their followers from offence without infringing the right of individuals.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13413974

[L[Quote]] · 1843 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·
 

Don't know if this fits here..anyways...

 

Archbishop criticizes Notre Dame

for inviting Obama to speak.

 

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/hughes_chides_notre_dame_for_o.html

[L[Quote]] · 1842 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·
 

 

Don't know if this fits here..anyways...

 

Archbishop criticizes Notre Dame

for inviting Obama to speak.

 

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/hughes_chides_notre_dame_for_o.html

 

Whether or not we agree with the tenets of Catholicism-Obama should not speak at Notre Dame.  Obama's agenda is an unabated slap in the face to what the Catholic Church holds dear.  The sanctity of life.  Obama supports the destruction of embryos [embryonic stem-cell use] and babies [supportive and obliging toward abortion].  To allow Obama to speak at probably America's most iconic Catholic establishment is a dangerous endeavor.  But for the President of the University himself to insist that Obama be allowed to speak is mind boggling.  The Catholic community is obligated to say something if their beliefs are bona fide.

[L[Quote]] · 1842 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·
 

I will expect the UN to be breaking down my door momentarily...

[L[Quote]] · 1842 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·
 

 

I will expect the UN to be breaking down my door momentarily...

Me too Sealed Laughing ...like your tattoo mrshumphreys