RESOLUTIONS that would have banned "defamation of religion" were rejected by international bodies this week, prompting an Atheist group to all off plans to demonstrate at the United Nations building.
The so-called "blasphemy" resolution introduced by Pakistan and supported by some Middle East regimes called upon governments to combat critical, insulting or defamatory statements about religion, specifically the Islamic faith. The measure lacked sufficient votes in the UN General Assembly to become a binding resolution; and the proposal will not be on the agenda at the Durban II conference slated for Geneva next month.
Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists said that he was encouraged by these developments.
"The 'blasphemy' resolutions were aimed at regulating personal opinions and expression, and had nothing to do with acts of violence against ethnic or religious groups," said Buckner. "Religious creeds and movements should not enjoy special rights or protections, especially where freedom of speech is concerned."
Dave Silverman, Communications Director for American Atheists cautioned that the "blasphemy" proposal is not dead.
"Religious groups and some faith-based states will continue to push this type of resolution," said Silverman. "Secular and even moderate religious organizations need to continually monitor this effort, and speak out vocally in defense of freedom of conscience and free expression."
Mr. Silverman said that a demonstration planned for this Saturday (March 28) outside the UN building in New York has been canceled.
"If this proposal is resurrected again," said Silverman, "we'll be ready to speak out and defend our freedom from religion!"
(AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for nonbelievers; works for the total separation of church and state; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy."
The above announcement appears on the American Atheists Web site.
Comments
It would be interesting to read the text of the resolution. While it's a good thing it was voted down, the issue of how to disagree without disrespect is not going to go away. Resolutions would probably just make the problem worse, though.
Elizabeth, I find it to be that you can hardly say anything without offending SOMEONE, and because of this, you can't really draw an arbitrary line of what is deemed respectful and what is not (there will always be a Bobby or a Susy in the corner who are offended).
There is nothing saying that people are not allowing to be insulted. I am extremely glad that this resolution has been taken from the current agenda as this is ridiculous. This is a bunch of smaller countries saying that everyone should mind their own business, essentially. You can't talk about the terrible treatment of women in these countries because it has to do with Sharia law. The UN is being controlled by these areas that have been subdivided by religion and wars and these areas, let's face it, are looking out for themselves. It's pretty clear with things like these resolutions that countries like Pakistan and Egypt are not interested in talking.
The fact that this was even considered is scary. But thankfully, reason (and freedom of speech) prevailed this time...
Reason hasn't prevailed. They couldn't even have their conference with every major nation bowing out, so this was a PR move. Additionally, most of the uproar was over the resolution's alleged anti-Israel tone. This is not a good thing, either, but I would venture to say that the defamation of religion objection was quite secondary. The resolution in the UN General Assembly on defamation of religion, as far as I know, still stands.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I know atheists are for the separation of church and state, which I am too, but I wish they were for the first amendment, which means, the government supported atheist religion, is unconstitutional as well. And it should be OK for local government to make laws pertaining to religion.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!