{/sarcasm}
Lest you be too quick to judge Cullenism harshly, keep in mind UN Human Rights Resolution 2002/9, passed just this last Friday. While the majority of the Resolution is beyond reproach, recognizing the importance of stopping hate crimes and discrimination based on religion, one chilling line remains:
"8. Encourages States, within their respective constitutional systems, to provide adequate protection against all human rights violations resulting from defamation of religions and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems;"
What exactly constitutes defamation of religion? And why is Islam so prominently identified as the major victim of defamation? Aren't other religions just as demonized in other parts of the world?
The UN failed to denote exactly what is defamation, and so opens the door to future denial of free-speech rights. It is interesting to note that the major backers of this resolution, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, are among the greatest deniers of human rights. Fox News has compiled a short, but by no means comprehensive, list of human rights violations by the member states, among them the jailing of a British teacher in Sudan who allowed his (Muslim) students to name the class teddy bear Muhammed, the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh for documenting the abuse of Islamic women, and the reported arrest of two promoters of a book deemed offensive to the wife of the Prophet, Aisha (they mentioned she was nine and prepubescent when the marriage was consummated.)
Essentially, what is being labeled as the crime of "defamation" in these cases is in reality merely a sin of blasphemy, and of course, blasphemy is all relative. While religion is allowed to have its own beliefs, and have them respected, the actions of a person acting in religious fervor are not similarly defensible. You may believe that all left-handed people are tainted by the devil, and I don't really mind. It's when you forcibly exorcise them that you've crossed the line, and religion can not be a shield for such activity. No matter what your beliefs are, there are others who will disagree with you, and you can not simply shut them up without any reasonable discourse. Kevin Hasson, founder of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said it best:
“When you talk about defamation, you talk about people being defamed and people being libeled, but ideas can’t be defamed. Ideas don’t have rights, people have rights.” (quote from Fox News)And that is precisely what is being happening here - the usurpation of the human right to disagree for the "right" of an idea to never be scrutinized, to never be challenged, and to punish those who do not believe. Sorry for being pessimistic, but that sounds like the first step of militarism to me. How ironic that the UN, once the paragon of world diplomacy, should be the one ushering in a new age of fascism and theocracy.
Edit: My language was probably a little strong. I merely meant that it was somewhat depressing for the UN, bulwark of human rights, to be completely subverted by a repressive agenda against those rights in the cause of religion. I use the term "fascism" to mean a religion of nationalism, which can be combined with any other more common religion in government.
1) As the original source has blocked the post, presumably for generating large amounts of trolling, Cullenism beliefs are here.
Hey, I like the Cullens!! That was a great attention getter for me, though I had never heard of "Cullenism." I read your link to Cullenism, and as much as I think the Cullens are cool, it sounds pretty silly-- I can't imagine people actually believe in it. ironically, according to the resolution you discussed in your blog, I would not be allowed to call Cullenism "silly," nor proclaim the "outrageousness" of people who believe in it.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting to consider defamation in regards to religion. While I think that it is great that we are making steps toward more tolerance to all religions, I don't think the way to do that is to silence all negative talk about the religion (I agree with you). I mean, is that not the point of being one religion over another-- the belief that you are right and 'they' are wrong? Defamation is "presenting someone or something in a negative light" (Wikipedia.com). is is possible for a theology teacher to profess a certain religion, without shedding negative light on all the other religions? If he makes all religions sound good, what will make his students want to stay with their particular religion? Sounds pretty silly to me, if all we can do is say positive things about other religions (while this sounds like a nice, friendly roses and sunshine worlds). I'm not saying it's right to blatantly offend others who are of a different religion, but certainly debate and disagreement should be allowed. At first glance, this resolution sounds great, upon closer inspection, after guidance from your blog, I would have to agree with you that it does sound insane to take away the right to publicly disagree and challenge other religions. Certainly members of a particular religion need to hear the reasoning behind their believed doctrines, and why their religion is "the" religion to believe in- over another religion.
I won't lie, like Kimberly, I too was drawn in by your Edward Cullen reference. haha sad but true!
ReplyDeleteAt first glance, this resolution does look like a positive thing. All religions are tolerated and accepted. The world will become a peaceful, happy place, I can just see it now.
Your comments really did bring about a different view of this resolution. What infuriates me is when groups of power that pass laws, resolutions, etc. (such as the UN or courts, etc) fail to define the language they use in their laws. I'm speaking particularly of the word "defamation." And if it's that hard to define, then don't use it!
It just seems like such broad and sweeping wording. I guess that is what your comments were getting at. With wording such as that, any negative view could be called defamation. And I think that if the UN were as forward thinking as they say they are, they would realize that differences in opinions are what help foster growth in ideas and knowledge. 200 years ago, someone speaking of evolution would not have been very popular to say the least. But because of a disagreement with the norm we now have a scientific community that is able to look at DNA, help cure genetic diseases, etc.This differing of opinion of course offended most religions that believe God created the Earth, Adam, Eve etc. in 7 days but look how that "defamation" of scripture has changed our lives.
I also liked how you pointed out the hypocrisy of Islam in that is supports this resolution, yet is completely intolerable of other religions.
Ok now I think I'm actually going to go look up this Cullenism you speak of haha
I really liked the quote about defaming people versus defaming ideas and definitely agree with it.
ReplyDeleteSadly I too was drawn in my the Cullen reference and then had flashbacks to all of the book bans Catholic churches put on Harry Potter books since it clearly demonstrates satanic ideals.
Satanic ideals which I pay to see put to the screen on IMAX at midnight each time a new one comes out =]
The definition is clearly needed if schools or other institutions hope that this will at all help justify whether they teach multiple religious histories to explain how humans are here, just evolution, or both. If defamation is just the act of stating a belief is wrong, well that can be done in numerous ways-by what someone says, doesn't say, or the actions a person takes. Without a definition the possibilities for people to believe their religions have been defamed are endless.
And now to read about Cullenism.
I'm not too worried about this.
ReplyDeleteThe phrasing -- especially the word "encourages" -- says to me that this is at most a feel-good measure. In particular, I think that this U.N. resolution is toothless in the U.S.: clearly, as it mentions, our Constitution would circumscribe any enforcement of it.
You mention that "the majority of the Resolution is beyond reproach, recognizing the importance of stopping hate crimes and discrimination based on religion, [but] one chilling line remains." The document speaks to me as designed by a committee to keep everyone happy, and this disagreeable line as more of a negative effect of that process than evidence of any grand machination by the U.N. to "[usher] in a new age of fascism and theocracy."