NationStates Jolt Archive

Is this fighting with intolerance or limiting freedom of speech?


By Robert Evans

GENEVA, March 12 (Reuters) - Islamic states are bidding to use the United Nations to limit freedom of expression and belief around the world, the global humanist body IHEU told the U.N.'s Human Rights Council on Wednesday.

In a statement submitted to the 48-nation Council, the IHEU said the 57 members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) were also aiming to undermine the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"The Islamic states see human rights exclusively in Islamic terms, and by sheer weight of numbers this view is becoming dominant within the U.N. system. The implications for the universality of human rights are ominous," it said.

The statement from the IHEU, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, was issued as the U.N.'s special investigator on freedom of opinion and expression argued in a report that religions had no special protection under human rights law.

Ambeyi Ligabo, a Kenyan jurist, said in a report to the Council limitations on freedom of expression in international rights pacts "are not designed to protect belief systems from external or internal criticism."

MOUNTING SUCCESS

But this argument is rejected by Islamic states, who say outright criticism -- and especially lampooning -- of religion violates the rights of believers to enjoy respect.

The IHEU statement and Ligabo's report came against the background of mounting success by the OIC, currently holding a summit in Dakar, in achieving passage of U.N. resolutions against "defamation of religions."

Although several such resolutions have been adopted by the two-year-old Council and its predecessor since 1999, in December the U.N.'s General Assembly easily passed a similar one for the first time over mainly Western and Latin American opposition.

The OIC -- backed by allies in Africa and by Russia and Cuba -- has been pushing for stronger resolutions on "defamation" since a global controversy arose two years ago over cartoons in a Danish newspaper which Muslims say insult their religion.

The "defamation" issue has become especially sensitive this year as the U.N. prepares to celebrate in the autumn the 50th anniversary of the 1948 Universal Declaration, long seen as the bedrock of international human rights law and practice.

The OIC has been actively promoting its own 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which it argues is complementary to the Universal Declaration but which critics like the IHEU say negate it in many areas.

Humanists, who include believers of many faiths supporting separation of religion and state as well as atheists and agnostics, say the "defamation" drive is part of an effort to extend the Cairo declaration to the international sphere.

The IHEU statement argued the December General Assembly resolution means states "may now legislate against any show of disrespect for religion, however they may choose to define 'disrespect'."

http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL12772652.html


Muslims nations: Defame Islam, get sued?



By RUKMINI CALLIMACHI, Associated Press Writer Fri Mar 14, 6:26 PM ET

DAKAR, Senegal - The Muslim world has created a battle plan to defend its religion from political cartoonists and bigots.

Concerned about what they see as a rise in the defamation of Islam, leaders of the world's Muslim nations are considering taking legal action against those that slight their religion or its sacred symbols. It was a key issue during a two-day summit that ended Friday in this western Africa capital.

The Muslim leaders are attempting to demand redress from nations like Denmark, which allowed the publication of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad in 2006 and again last month, to the fury of the Muslim world.

Though the legal measures being considered have not been spelled out, the idea pits many Muslims against principles of freedom of speech enshrined in the constitutions of numerous Western governments.

"I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference. "There can be no freedom without limits."

Delegates were given a voluminous report by the OIC that recorded anti-Islamic speech and actions from around the world. The report concludes that Islam is under attack and that a defense must be mounted.

"Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination," charged Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary general of the group.

The report urges the creation of a "legal instrument" to crack down on defamation of Islam. Some delegates point to laws in Europe criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust and other anti-Semitic rhetoric. They also point to articles within various U.N. charters that condemn discrimination based on religion and argue that these should be ramped up.

"In our relation with the western world, we are going through a difficult time," Ihsanoglu told the summit's general assembly. "Islamophobia cannot be dealt with only through cultural activities but (through) a robust political engagement."

The International Humanist and Ethical Union in Geneva released a statement accusing the Islamic states of attempting to limit freedom of expression and of attempting to misuse the U.N.

Human Rights Watch said in a statement that objectionable depictions of the Prophet Muhammad do not "give them the right under international human rights law to insist that others abide by their views."

Hemayet Uddin, the lead author of the OIC report and head of cultural affairs for the group said legal action is needed because "this Islamophobia that we see in the world has gone far beyond a phobia. It is now at the level of hatred, of xenophobia, and we need to act."

A new charter drafted by the OIC commits the Muslim body "to protect and defend the true image of Islam" and "to combat the defamation of Islam."

To protect the faith, Muslim nations have created an "observatory" that meets regularly to monitor Islamophobia. It examines lectures and workshops taking place around the world and prints a monthly record of offensive content.

But some of the summit's delegates said a legal approach would be over the top.

"My general view would be that the confrontational approach is one my country would avoid," said Bangladeshi Foreign Minister Iftekhar Chowdhruy. Bangladesh is 90 percent Muslim.

While the Muslim world worries about the image of Islam in the West, the U.S. envoy to the OIC attended the summit to try to tackle the thorny question of America's image among Muslim states.

Sada Cumber calls his campaign the "soft power" of the U.S. — an effort to find common ground with Muslim nations by championing universal values the U.S. holds dear like religious tolerance and freedom of speech.

"America has a deep respect for the religion of Islam," Cumber told The Associated Press. "The freedom of faith that we exercise, that we enjoy in America, that is also a very important aspect of the American core values. Anyone who wants to practice any faith is never stopped or discouraged."

Also during the summit, Chad and Sudan signed a peace agreement to stop incursions of rebels across each other's borders, and the summit delegates committed themselves to addressing the spiraling violence between Israelis and Palestinians.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/ap_on_re_af/islamic_summit_islamophobia

As I've said before: Islam and muslims need to get over themselves. They are by no means, and in no ways, special.

I find it astonishing that there are groups of people who believe that you have the right to worship whatever invisible man you want(especially if it's the same invisible man they worship), but are a second class citizen if you were born with a vagina or enjoy the wrong kind of sex.

I find it even more astonishing that I'm the crazy one. :p

I find it astonishing that there are groups of people who believe that you have the right to worship whatever invisible man you want(especially if it's the same invisible man they worship), but are a second class citizen if you were born with a vagina or enjoy the wrong kind of sex.

I find it even more astonishing that I'm the crazy one. :p

LG, you are one of the few sane people in the world. It's the rest of humanity that batshit crazy.

Here's the fun part, though: The only resolutions that can come out of this will be non-binding to nations that didn't vote for them.

This is what happens when you start sticking the word "right" in front of everything you think is good

This is why secularism is a good thing. It avoids this kind of unnecessary penis waving.

As much as I hate freedom (a bit), also intolerance (a lot), this is ridiculous. There we go.

No belief, religious or otherwise, has a right to respect. Respect is earned.

This is the goal of the radical Islamists and Wahabbists...to convert the entire world to Islam or put it to the sword. People can say if the US stops doing this or Israel stops doing this that things will change, but it won't.

Bin Laden's video earlier this year saying that if the US converts to Islam that all this can stop was Islamofascism's "Mein Kampf." If people don't wake up to this threat now, will they do so when they're forced to pray to Mecca five times a day?

I know this doesn't reflect the views of all Muslims and I believe many of them just want to do their own thing, but this intolerance is ridiculous. They can blast Christianity and Judaism all they want, but we can't make a commentary about their faith?

This sort of thing has no place in the civilised world. Just another reason why religious fundamentalism and progress for humanity are incompatible.

The civilized West must never bow before ideological dirt such as Islam, or any other abrahmic religion. Belief does not deserve respect, it deserves medication.

Ridiculous, respect is earned, secularism is good etc etc.

Though since no one listens when the UN promotes freedom I doubt the opposite will gain much more attention. :p

This is why secularism is a good thing. It avoids this kind of unnecessary penis waving.

Does it? What do you call the invasion of Iraq?

Does it? What do you call the invasion of Iraq?

Wasn't it ordained by God?

Wasn't it ordained by God?

Maybe, maybe not. But it was endorsed by a secular government and the administration, congress and media, even in the US, are not God.

Nope, this was all human, all unnecessary and indeed, there was actual penis waving in Gitmo was there not?

Maybe, maybe not. But it was endorsed by a secular government and the administration, congress and media, even in the US, are not God.

Nope, this was all human, all unnecessary and indeed, there was actual penis waving in Gitmo was there not?

It was conceived by people who happened to be evangelical fundamentalists, was then supported most strongly by similar people, and then sold to the public through a mixture of dishonesty and flag-waving. Plainly, it was more down to the neo-conservative views which tend to co-exist with those relgious views, than those views on their own.

"No religion or ideaology is morally black-its when the situation of its follower's forces them to misinterpret" -Shawn Hockery

Wow. I'm quoting one of my RP Characters. I need a life.

It was conceived by people who happened to be evangelical fundamentalists, was then supported most strongly by similar people, and then sold to the public through a mixture of dishonesty and flag-waving.

That last part sounds like an excuse for people who supported it. "We were lied to!" "We couldn't resist the shiny flags!" "It's not our fault!"

I'm digressing here but I really have little respect for people who were fine with invading country after country until there was some Democrat/Republican advantage gaining bullshit to be had. Then, oh, suddenly it's wrong, suddenly it's no longer a good idea, suddenly people like me are not called "sand ****** lovers" for disagreeing.

This country is fickle and diseased and it's got precious little to do with either religion or secularism.

Plainly, it was more down to the neo-conservative views which tend to co-exist with those relgious views, than those views on their own.

I don't see how invading Iraq would really be in line with religious views. Neo-conservative politicians are no more representative of their religion than suicide bombers are of theirs.

That last part sounds like an excuse for people who supported it. "We were lied to!" "We couldn't resist the shiny flags!" "It's not our fault!"

I'm digressing here but I really have little respect for people who were fine with invading country after country until there was some Democrat/Republican advantage gaining bullshit to be had. Then, oh, suddenly it's wrong, suddenly it's no longer a good idea, suddenly people like me are not called "sand ****** lovers" for disagreeing.

This country is fickle and diseased and it's got precious little to do with either religion or secularism.

I would agree with you on that. Personally, I never believed a word of it. Still, it would appear that the majority of the American public did. The Hillary Clinton's of this world are the sort of people who allowed Iraq to happen unopposed, and they should have known better. Still, Nuremberg shows us how easy it is to whip people into a frenzy over an issue without any real factual evidence to base that frenzy on. Much of it probably has something to do with America's patriotism, which most Europeans find difficult to fathom.

I don't see how invading Iraq would really be in line with religious views. Neo-conservative politicians are no more representative of their religion than suicide bombers are of theirs.

I would probably say that it was. Typically, these are the sorts of people who view an invasion of a Muslim country as being an added bonus in deciding what to do. More generally, religious neo-conservatives want to promote their own bizarre brand of religious nationalism, whether at home or abroad. Saddam, as the "godless" tyrant of a predominantly Muslim country, was an easy target. Of course, not all Christians are neo-liberals, but an alarming number of neo-liberals are either evangelical Christians or, in America, Zionists. Religious and politics don't mix happily.

oh dear it seems terrorists and scientologists go hand in hand to the promised land

I would agree with you on that. Personally, I never believed a word of it. Still, it would appear that the majority of the American public did. The Hillary Clinton's of this world are the sort of people who allowed Iraq to happen unopposed, and they should have known better. Still, Nuremberg shows us how easy it is to whip people into a frenzy over an issue without any real factual evidence to base that frenzy on. Much of it probably has something to do with America's patriotism, which most Europeans find difficult to fathom.


I can't fathom why Europeans wouldn't be able to fathom nationalism!

I mean really, it's not like we invented it... though we probably managed to nab the patent all the same.


I would probably say that it was. Typically, these are the sorts of people who view an invasion of a Muslim country as being an added bonus in deciding what to do. More generally, religious neo-conservatives want to promote their own bizarre brand of religious nationalism, whether at home or abroad. Saddam, as the "godless" tyrant of a predominantly Muslim country, was an easy target. Of course, not all Christians are neo-liberals, but an alarming number of neo-liberals are either evangelical Christians or, in America, Zionists. Religious and politics don't mix happily.

Religion gets caught up and it's useful politically, but I still think there is a real separation even if it's in most political participants' best interests to blur the line.

I know folks who are Christian in name but also seem, as far as I can tell, to act decently and intelligently. So from my perspective, ones who simply use the religion as some sort of justification for everything they might do probably have more "faith" in their own righteousness than in anything else. Similarly, I know a few Muslims and none of them seem bad, so I still (optimistically and perhaps naively) assume that the rotten apples are the exceptions, and we just hear about them more because a guy who just goes to work every day and lives his life and feeds his family doesn't get into the news, while some raving nutcase gets mentioned by 5 networks over the course of 3 months and his picture in Time.

To war!

Maybe resolve some overpopulation issues on our way.

Disclaimer: I'd be on the frontline, and I'm european.

Is this fighting with intolerance or limiting freedom of speech?

The two aren't mutually exclusive, but in this instance it's a clear attempt to limit freedom of speech. I can't see how the lawsuits would work though, unless they're going to hold their own show-trial and then illegally seize any assets of the offending country that they can get their hands on.

I don't see how invading Iraq would really be in line with religious views. Neo-conservative politicians are no more representative of their religion than suicide bombers are of theirs.
But neo-conservatives are an important outgrowth of American Christianity, just as suicide bombers are an important outgrowth of Islam. Of course it is true that they are "only" a few percent and that most Christians/Muslims just go to work and live their lives and feed their families etc., but a few percent is still a lot, and the remaining 90-plus percent don't do anything to stop them.

But neo-conservatives are an important outgrowth of American Christianity, just as suicide bombers are an important outgrowth of Islam.
How inane...

American neo-conservatives have often found favour and helpful allegiance with the American religious right, but they’re in no way an offshoot of Christianity itself. And suicide attacks are an outgrowth of (questionable) tactics, not Islam.

Unless you think kamikaze pilots prayed to Allah before flying off to their deaths?

But neo-conservatives are an important outgrowth of American Christianity, just as suicide bombers are an important outgrowth of Islam. Of course it is true that they are "only" a few percent and that most Christians/Muslims just go to work and live their lives and feed their families etc., but a few percent is still a lot, and the remaining 90-plus percent don't do anything to stop them.Because the remaining 90-plus percent share their convictions. It's the same belief, after all.

That last part sounds like an excuse for people who supported it. "We were lied to!" "We couldn't resist the shiny flags!" "It's not our fault!"

I'm digressing here but I really have little respect for people who were fine with invading country after country until there was some Democrat/Republican advantage gaining bullshit to be had. Then, oh, suddenly it's wrong, suddenly it's no longer a good idea, suddenly people like me are not called "sand ****** lovers" for disagreeing.

This country is fickle and diseased and it's got precious little to do with either religion or secularism.



I don't see how invading Iraq would really be in line with religious views. Neo-conservative politicians are no more representative of their religion than suicide bombers are of theirs.

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html

Washington Dispatch: Televangelist Rod Parsley, a key McCain ally in Ohio, has called for eradicating the "false religion." Will the GOP presidential candidate renounce him?

Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary, a television studio (where Parsley tapes a weekly show), and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center. That day, a week before the Ohio primary, Parsley praised the Republican presidential front-runner as a "strong, true, consistent conservative." The endorsement was important for McCain, who at the time was trying to put an end to the lingering challenge from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a favorite among Christian evangelicals. A politically influential figure in Ohio, Parsley could also play a key role in McCain's effort to win this bellwether state in the general election. McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide."

The leader of a 12,000-member congregation, Parsley has written several books outlining his fundamentalist religious outlook, including the 2005 Silent No More. In this work, Parsley decries the "spiritual desperation" of the United States, and he blasts away at the usual suspects: activist judges, civil libertarians who advocate the separation of church and state, the homosexual "culture" ("homosexuals are anything but happy and carefree"), the "abortion industry," and the crass and profane entertainment industry. And Parsley targets another profound threat to the United States: the religion of Islam.

In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Parsley warns there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization." He continues:

I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.

Parsley is not shy about his desire to obliterate Islam. In Silent No More, he notes—approvingly—that Christopher Columbus shared the same goal: "It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America." He urges his readers to realize that a confrontation between Christianity and Islam is unavoidable: "We find now we have no choice. The time has come." And he has bad news: "We may already be losing the battle. As I scan the world, I find that Islam is responsible for more pain, more bloodshed, and more devastation than nearly any other force on earth at this moment."

Parsley claims that Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" predicated on "deception." The Muslim prophet Muhammad, he writes, "received revelations from demons and not from the true God." And he emphasizes this point: "Allah was a demon spirit." Parsley does not differentiate between violent Islamic extremists and other followers of the religion:

There are some, of course, who will say that the violence I cite is the exception and not the rule. I beg to differ. I will counter, respectfully, that what some call "extremists" are instead mainstream believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam.

The spirit of Islam, he maintains, is one of hostility. He asserts that the religion "inspired" the 9/11 attacks. He bemoans the fact that in the years after 9/11, 34,000 Americans "have become Muslim" and that there are "some 1,209 mosques" in America. Islam, he declares, is a "faith that fully intends to conquer the world" through violence. The United States, he insists, "has historically understood herself as a bastion against Islam," but "history is crashing in upon us."

At the end of his chapter on Islam, Parsley asks, "Are we a Christian nation? I say yes." Without specifying what actions should be taken to eradicate the religion, he essentially calls for a new crusade.

Parsley, who refers to himself as a "Christocrat," is no stranger to controversy. In 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity, called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis. In the past Parsley's church has been accused of engaging in pro-Republican partisan activities in violation of its tax-exempt status.

Why would McCain court Parsley? He has long had trouble figuring out how to deal with Christian fundamentalists, an important bloc for the Republican Party. During his 2000 presidential bid, he referred to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance." But six years later, as he readied himself for another White House run, McCain repudiated that remark. More recently, his campaign hit a rough patch when he accepted the endorsement of the Reverend John Hagee, a Texas televangelist who has called the Catholic Church "the great whore" and a "false cult system." After the Catholic League protested and called on McCain to renounce Hagee's support, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee praised Hagee's spiritual leadership and support of Israel and said that "when [Hagee] endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for or believes in." After being further criticized for his Hagee connection, McCain backed off slightly, saying, "I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics." But McCain did not renounce Hagee's endorsement.

McCain's relationship with Parsley is politically significant. In 2004, Parsley's church was credited with driving Christian fundamentalist voters to the polls for George W. Bush. With Ohio expected to again be a decisive state in the presidential contest, Parsley's World Harvest Church and an affiliated entity called Reformation Ohio, which registers voters, could be important players within this battleground state. Considering that the Ohio Republican Party has been decimated by various political scandals and that a popular Democrat, Ted Strickland, is now the state's governor, McCain and the Republicans will need all the help they can get in the Buckeye State this fall. It's a real question: Can McCain win the presidency without Parsley?

The McCain campaign did not respond to a request for comment regarding Parsley and his anti-Islam writings. Parsley did not return a call seeking comment.

"The last thing I want to be is another screaming voice moving people to extremes and provoking them to folly in the name of patriotism," Parsley writes in Silent No More. Provoking people to holy war is another matter. About that, McCain so far is silent.

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington, D.C. bureau chief.

So there are issues all round....;)

I find it interesting that a thread that started out focused on the UN and Islam ended up being about the USA and Christianity in less than 20 posts.

:rolleyes:

Nova Magna Germania seeks worlds attention via flamespam - Nodin

Nuff said

I find it interesting that a thread that started out focused on the UN and Islam ended up being about the USA and Christianity in less than 20 posts.

:rolleyes:

Fair enough..I was reading it more as another example of a religion forcing people to bend to its will...

Fair enough..I was reading it more as another example of a religion forcing people to bend to its will...

Except in the USA, the Constitution and SCoTUS are there to prevent any one religion from taking over. does the UN have anything like that in place? especially when it's stated that more Islamic states are joining the UN and could vote to make such changes?

Except in the USA, the Constitution and SCoTUS are there to prevent any one religion from taking over. does the UN have anything like that in place? especially when it's stated that more Islamic states are joining the UN and could vote to make such changes?

Does that matter, when the United States is a permanent member of the Security Council and has vetoed all sorts of resolutions to protect its own interests, which this one probably will?

Except in the USA, the Constitution and SCoTUS are there to prevent any one religion from taking over. does the UN have anything like that in place? especially when it's stated that more Islamic states are joining the UN and could vote to make such changes?

Doesn't seem to have stopped religion in government and politics...

As for the UN...as stated those who do not take part are not bound to this...

Of course personally I think this is all a load of bollocks and quite frankly the lot of them can just fuck right off.

Unless you think kamikaze pilots prayed to Allah before flying off to their deaths?The kamikazes were an offshoot of Shintoism. Politically powerful religions tend to generate crazy offshoots regardless of the particular content.

The kamikazes were an offshoot of Shintoism. Politically powerful religions tend to generate crazy offshoots regardless of the particular content.

hmmmm I think more an off shoot of rabid right wing militarism...

And, even if they somehow legally pass this in the UN, do they think that the UN can do anything to enforce those laws in our countries?

Please, the UN can't even enforce their previous Human Rights declaration in their countries...

Does that matter, when the United States is a permanent member of the Security Council and has vetoed all sorts of resolutions to protect its own interests, which this one probably will?
Which is Politics, not Religion. Thanks for playing.

Doesn't seem to have stopped religion in government and politics... yes it has. what is the Offical National Religion of the USA? opinions aside, there is none.


As for the UN...as stated those who do not take part are not bound to this...

Of course personally I think this is all a load of bollocks and quite frankly the lot of them can just fuck right off. but it does sound like they are trying to redefine the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a backbone that many use to argue against inhumane treatment as well as crimes against humanity performed by many governments. can you imagine the damage that can be done if that gets undermined and/or redefined?

This is my drawing of Muhammed:

:)

Come and get me Allah-suckers!

The kamikazes were an offshoot of Shintoism.
Then you’d be able to show that kamikaze pilots were flying to their deaths purely for religious reasons, and not for political and/or military reasons?

Similarly, you’d be able to show that suicide bombers blow themselves up purely for religious reasons, and not for political ad/or military reasons?

Politically powerful religions tend to generate crazy offshoots regardless of the particular content.
Sometimes, sure, but attributing actions such as suicide bombing to only religious reasons is rather naive, I feel.

what is the Offical National Religion of the USA? opinions aside, there is none.but de-facto there is.

hmmmm I think more an off shoot of rabid right wing militarism......and the militarists needed to affiliate themselves with a religion in order to gain this particular kind of fanatical behavior.

Which is Politics, not Religion. Thanks for playing.

yes it has. what is the Offical National Religion of the USA? opinions aside, there is none.


but it does sound like they are trying to redefine the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a backbone that many use to argue against inhumane treatment as well as crimes against humanity performed by many governments. can you imagine the damage that can be done if that gets undermined and/or redefined?

Well I think you will find that religion is a defining force in American politics. If you are not a Christian you are unlikely to be elected to high office.

I do not know what the impact would if the UDHR was redefined. I suspect many of those who respect the ideology behind the UDHR will give this proposed new declaration little truck.

...and the militarists needed to affiliate themselves with a religion in order to gain this particular kind of fanatical behavior.
So it’s an off-shoot of militarism playing on religious fanaticism.

...and the militarists needed to affiliate themselves with a religion in order to gain this particular kind of fanatical behavior.

yeah I admit I don't know enough about Japanese history and society and I cannot deny that Shintoism had a profound influence. Having said that the main object of their fanaticism was the Emperor.

But neo-conservatives are an important outgrowth of American Christianity, just as suicide bombers are an important outgrowth of Islam. Of course it is true that they are "only" a few percent and that most Christians/Muslims just go to work and live their lives and feed their families etc., but a few percent is still a lot, and the remaining 90-plus percent don't do anything to stop them.

So if I believe in the Spaghetti God, and someone else believes in the Spaghetti God, and he kills someone, it's somehow my job to have stopped him? Or it's my job to say, "By the way, that wasn't me who killed him" just so people don't have to go through the anguish of thinking?

but de-facto there is.
no there isn't.

there are those that have numerous of members as well as those that are 'popular' but there is NO Offical National Religion.

prove me wrong. Present the decree or law stating what that Offical National Religion is.

Well I think you will find that religion is a defining force in American politics. If you are not a Christian you are unlikely to be elected to high office. which is not a product of the Governmental laws but of the people voting that person into office.

what would happen if a candidate's religion was never brought up?

I do not know what the impact would if the UDHR was redefined. I suspect many of those who respect the ideology behind the UDHR will give this proposed new declaration little truck.
I hope so. but it is something to keep an eye on.

Except in the USA, the Constitution and SCoTUS are there to prevent any one religion from taking over. does the UN have anything like that in place? especially when it's stated that more Islamic states are joining the UN and could vote to make such changes?Yes. It's called "national sovereignity."

yeah I admit I don't know enough about Japanese history and society and I cannot deny that Shintoism had a profound influence. Having said that the main object of their fanaticism was the Emperor.The DEIFIED Emperor.
Religiosity often feeds murderousness. People want to pretend that the religion and the murderousness have nothing to do with each other, but that is very disingenuous.

But this argument is rejected by Islamic states, who say outright criticism -- and especially lampooning -- of religion violates the rights of believers to enjoy respect.


Oh sod off. There is no right to respect. Especially for a group of people who practice revisionist history and holocaust denial (radical Islam)


http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html



So there are issues all round....;)

$20 (or Euro...) says that McCain doesnt denounce him. Hell, Im willing to bet McCain believes everything that loon says.

No human right to date exists to force anyone to respect each other, unless you have to respect someone to avoid killing them, stealing from them and shutting them up permanently.

So, no you silly leaders, just no. Religion has very rarely earned any respect. The only kind of right I will allow is the right to believe in a religion, but that religion is certainly open to ridicule.

I've got two words for the OIC if they think they're going to infringe on my right to freedom of speech:

:upyours:

But thank you, OIC, for confirming every right-thinking person's worst suspicions concerning your creed and its true intentions.

I've got two words for the OIC if they think they're going to infringe on my right to freedom of speech:

:upyours:

But thank you, OIC, for confirming every right-thinking person's worst suspicions concerning your creed and its true intentions.
I've got two words for anyone thinking the OIC is going to infringe on your right to freedom of speech:

Educate yourself.

This is why secularism is a good thing. It avoids this kind of unnecessary penis waving.
I can't say that extreme secularism is a good thing though...

This is the goal of the radical Islamists and Wahabbists...to convert the entire world to Islam or put it to the sword.
...which is why Russia, Cuba and the Pope is supporting this initiative.

but a few percent is still a lot, and the remaining 90-plus percent don't do anything to stop them.
Nope, nothing at all. Which is why Islamic Terrorism has only targeted non-muslims, and no muslim has ever died trying to stop it.



Oh wait, that's just factually incorrect! :rolleyes:

especially when it's stated that more Islamic states are joining the UN and could vote to make such changes?
How many Islamic countries have yet to join the UN, btw?
And when did the last Islamic country join? (Hint: Not in this millennium!)

Does that matter, when the United States is a permanent member of the Security Council and has vetoed all sorts of resolutions to protect its own interests, which this one probably will?
The UNSC cannot veto resolutions passed by the General Assembly.

How many Islamic countries have yet to join the UN, btw? I can think of two potential candidates, though they're not quite official candidates yet.

I can think of two potential candidates, though they're not quite official candidates yet.

And that would be?

Human rights are contradictory to the rights of the people, because I would base rights in man as a social product, not man as an abstract with innate rights. "Human rights" do not exist except for the bourgeoisie man, a position that was at the forefront of feudalism, like liberty, equality, and fraternity were advanced for the bourgeoisie of the past. But today, since the appearance of the proletariat as an organized class in the Communist Party, with the experience of triumphant revolutions, with the construction of socialism, new democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat, it has been proven that human rights serve the oppressor class and the exploiters who run the imperialist and landowner-bureaucratic states. I would reject and condemn human rights because they are bourgeois, reactionary, counterrevolutionary rights, and are today a weapon of revisionists and imperialists.

I would reject and condemn human rights

Enough said. I'm done with you. Not simply because you're so obviously either a) a troll or b) a sociopathic Stalinist who honestly believes in killing and slaughter in the name of a stupid ideology, but because there is no point in converse. You're here just to make your Stalinist proclamations. I doubt you even read what anyone writes, but I get the feeling that (if b is the case) refraining from reading is your primary defense mechanism whenever anyone challenges your stupid, sadistic and criminal ideology, or your main troll tactic (if a is the case).

Either way - you're dismissed. Go torture kittens or whatever it is you need to do.

The report urges the creation of a "legal instrument" to crack down on defamation of Islam. Some delegates point to laws in Europe criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust and other anti-Semitic rhetoric. They also point to articles within various U.N. charters that condemn discrimination based on religion and argue that these should be ramped up.

They're right. The precedent has been set for limitations on inflammatory (religious) speech. Solution: null out the precedent. Scrap the laws. Now none of them have a case to limit the ultra-precious freedom of speech.

Enough said. I'm done with you. Not simply because you're so obviously either a) a troll or b) a sociopathic Stalinist who honestly believes in killing and slaughter in the name of a stupid ideology, but because there is no point in converse. You're here just to make your Stalinist proclamations. I doubt you even read what anyone writes, but I get the feeling that (if b is the case) refraining from reading is your primary defense mechanism whenever anyone challenges your stupid, sadistic and criminal ideology, or your main troll tactic (if a is the case).

Either way - you're dismissed. Go torture kittens or whatever it is you need to do.

Actually no, your the one who cannot debate rationally and instead you revert to abstract emotionalist and moralistic diatribe. 'Human rights' as put forward by the bourgeois powers are in fact nothing but freedom for slave owners, they support property rights for the exploiters and the right of state to oppress worker masses. Your problem is that you cannot recognize that your own ideas are the material product of your existence within bourgeois society, instead you reject reality and instead hide yourself behind your emotionalist propaganda.

Your the one who reverts to crude stereotypical generalizations of 'Stalinism', even 'criminal', meaning of course your bourgeois jurisprudence.

Please Trostia, if anything your a walking example of the truth of Marxism.

And that would be?
Kosovo and Palestine.

Human rights are contradictory to the rights of the people, because I would base rights in man as a social product, not man as an abstract with innate rights. "Human rights" do not exist except for the bourgeoisie man, a position that was at the forefront of feudalism, like liberty, equality, and fraternity were advanced for the bourgeoisie of the past. But today, since the appearance of the proletariat as an organized class in the Communist Party, with the experience of triumphant revolutions, with the construction of socialism, new democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat, it has been proven that human rights serve the oppressor class and the exploiters who run the imperialist and landowner-bureaucratic states. I would reject and condemn human rights because they are bourgeois, reactionary, counterrevolutionary rights, and are today a weapon of revisionists and imperialists.Learn commie-catchword grammar before using big words like that.

I find it astonishing that there are groups of people who believe that you have the right to worship whatever invisible man you want(especially if it's the same invisible man they worship), but are a second class citizen if you were born with a vagina or enjoy the wrong kind of sex.

I find it even more astonishing that I'm the crazy one. :p

You are crazy (though I'd call it 'thinking outside of the universe that contains the box'), though for different reasons.

Most people would consider having a second family made out of mud quite a bit crazy...

Enough said. I'm done with you. Not simply because you're so obviously either a) a troll or b) a sociopathic Stalinist who honestly believes in killing and slaughter in the name of a stupid ideology, but because there is no point in converse. You're here just to make your Stalinist proclamations. I doubt you even read what anyone writes, but I get the feeling that (if b is the case) refraining from reading is your primary defense mechanism whenever anyone challenges your stupid, sadistic and criminal ideology, or your main troll tactic (if a is the case).

Either way - you're dismissed. Go torture kittens or whatever it is you need to do.
Why does anybody here even bother debating with him? I really can't understand why anybody does, it's pointless. All it does is encourage him further, you'd be better off ignoring him. Communists are mostly a joke now anyway, particularly in the west. This ain't the cold war, you can afford to ignore them or laugh at them.

As for the OP, I can't see this going anywhere. I doubt they would ever be able to find a majority in the General Assembly, and even if they did, anything passed there is only non-binding as far as I know. If they wanted it to be binding they'd have to pass it through the Security Council. Aaaah, I love our veto!

Does it? What do you call the invasion of Iraq?

According to the President who pushed for and wages the invasion, it's God's Will.

I find it astonishing that there are groups of people who believe that you have the right to worship whatever invisible man you want(especially if it's the same invisible man they worship), but are a second class citizen if you were born with a vagina or enjoy the wrong kind of sex.

I find it even more astonishing that I'm the crazy one. :p

You are crazy (or 'thinking outside of the universe that contains the box'), though for different reasons: Not many people would consider having a second family made out mud sane...

Does it? What do you call the invasion of Iraq?

A penis competition between G.Bush snr and G.Bush jnr?

As I've said before: Islam and muslims need to get over themselves. They are by no means, and in no ways, special.

Sums it up perfectly.

This is surprising how? It would be news if they did the opposite.

I agree with the idea of respect being earned, not given. If Muslim leaders want their religion to be respected, they need to publicly and vehemently denounce the violent extremists.

If Muslim leaders...
Leaders of Islamic states; they’re not some head group of all Muslims on the planet.

Cat Stevens doesn’t take his orders from King Abdullah.

Still...it would go a long way if someone influential in the religion would step up to the plate on this.

Still...it would go a long way if someone influential in the religion would step up to the plate on this.
Again, your assuming that all Muslims are of one mind, that they all share the exact same faith or practices. Moreover, many different representatives of many different Muslim beliefs, including organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain, have denounced extremism and violence.

Again, your assuming that all Muslims are of one mind, that they all share the exact same faith or practices. Moreover, many different representatives of many different Muslim beliefs, including organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain, have denounced extremism and violence.

I never stated I assumed as much...I don't. I'm Christian...so I definetly understand the concept of different sects in a religion. However, I have not seen many cases of extremism in the Muslim faith being decried. Granted, most of the media wants to hype up all the violence assocciated with the fudamentalist sects, I think there should be focus on working towards eliminating the extremist branches, not censoring people who would point them out.

I never stated I assumed as much...I don't. I'm Christian...so I definetly understand the concept of different sects in a religion. However, I have not seen many cases of extremism in the Muslim faith being decried. Granted, most of the media wants to hype up all the violence assocciated with the fudamentalist sects, I think there should be focus on working towards eliminating the extremist branches, not censoring people who would point them out.

You're either not looking, or you're just letting the media tell you what they think. Muslims decrying extremisim does not make good news, and thus does not sell. Explosions and bombs and hatred make good news.

The Imam for the local mosque had this to say when asked, by local reporters at a talk at my university about terrorisim.
If they are muslims, I am a dancing purple monkey.
Didn't make it into the newspaper article written about it in the local paper, and that didn't even make it into anything else.

You're either not looking, or you're just letting the media tell you what they think. Muslims decrying extremisim does not make good news, and thus does not sell. Explosions and bombs and hatred make good news.

The Imam for the local mosque had this to say when asked, by local reporters at a talk at my university about terrorisim.

Didn't make it into the newspaper article written about it in the local paper, and that didn't even make it into anything else.

If it doesn't make news it's going to be hard for me to find out about it except by word of mouth...and since I live in a very ignorant area, that won't happen. Maybe I come off as racist or prejudice by admitting my lack of knowledge in that area, but my point is just this...I don't think ANY religion should try and curb the freedom of speech.

Actually no, your the one who cannot debate rationally and instead you revert to abstract emotionalist and moralistic diatribe. 'Human rights' as put forward by the bourgeois powers are in fact nothing but freedom for slave owners, they support property rights for the exploiters and the right of state to oppress worker masses. Your problem is that you cannot recognize that your own ideas are the material product of your existence within bourgeois society, instead you reject reality and instead hide yourself behind your emotionalist propaganda.

Your the one who reverts to crude stereotypical generalizations of 'Stalinism', even 'criminal', meaning of course your bourgeois jurisprudence.

Please Trostia, if anything your a walking example of the truth of Marxism.

Blah blah blah bourgeoise blah blah blah abstract blah blah blah emotionalist blah blah blah bourgeois blah blah blah oppressed workers blah blah blah Marx blah blah.

Anyway, go and torture those kittens/kulaks/whoever. I'm going to go oppress the proletariat. We'll see who does the more harm.

Blah blah blah bourgeoise blah blah blah abstract blah blah blah emotionalist blah blah blah bourgeois blah blah blah oppressed workers blah blah blah Marx blah blah.

Anyway, go and torture those kittens/kulaks/whoever. I'm going to go oppress the proletariat. We'll see who does the more harm.

What happened to the "Ship Andaras Prime to North Korea" fund? No contributors?

What happened to the "Ship Andaras Prime to North Korea" fund? No contributors?
What is this nationalist idea you have? I am not allowed to contribute politically in my own country?

You're either not looking, or you're just letting the media tell you what they think. Muslims decrying extremisim does not make good news, and thus does not sell. Explosions and bombs and hatred make good news.

The western media (especially the more yellow-journalism prone outfits like FOXNews) is still in love with the image of Muslims as suicide-bombing, head-chopping intolerant subhuman foreign zealots out to turn the world into Teh Caliphate. It's like sex. Nobody would sell it if nobody bought it. And from the views expressed by some of the NSGers, there's still a large market for this crap.

I still think there's a little bit much over-sensitivity to criticism on their part. No religion has the right to censor the free speech of the world, in my opinion at least.

What is this nationalist idea you have? I am not allowed to contribute politically in my own country?

Since you love Stalinism so much, we thought you should taste it first hand. For the rest of your life.

You are the square peg in the round hole. Even the reply you give to this will be more regurgitated pseudo-Marxist lies. That is right. You are not a Marxist. Marx would spit at you for perverting his ideas. You have nothing of value to contribute. Nothing.

Since you love Stalinism so much, we thought you should taste it first hand. For the rest of your life.

You are the square peg in the round hole. Even the reply you give to this will be more regurgitated pseudo-Marxist lies. That is right. You are not a Marxist. Marx would spit at you for perverting his ideas. You have nothing of value to contribute. Nothing.

Oh god, please don't let the emotion overtake you, I find it clouds judgment and rational thought. Secondly, Marx would have been horrified at the pseudo-leftists who whine constantly about 'Stalin' and 'authoritarianism' and engage in Soviet bashing whenever their bourgeois friends are around.

I don't understand this move by Islamic countries. Haven't they already declared an 'Islamic' HR declaration thingy in response to the Universal HR declaration by UN?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam

Getting "you have to respect my religion" will backfire on them...because there is less religious freedom in many of the Islamic countries themselves. When you land in KSA, they actually confiscate and destroy even religious pictures in your wallets. If that is not disrespect, I dunno what is.

Getting "you have to respect my religion" will backfire on them...because there is less religious freedom in many of the Islamic countries themselves. When you land in KSA, they actually confiscate and destroy even religious pictures in your wallets. If that is not disrespect, I dunno what is.

Reminds me of the Iranian president coming to the US to debate against the freedom of speech at a university. He was exercising the very freedom he wished to supress. There is irony in both situations here.

Oh god, please don't let the emotion overtake you, I find it clouds judgment and rational thought. Secondly, Marx would have been horrified at the pseudo-leftists who whine constantly about 'Stalin' and 'authoritarianism' and engage in Soviet bashing whenever their bourgeois friends are around.

Predictable. So very predictable.

I would reject and condemn human rights because they are bourgeois, reactionary, counterrevolutionary rights, and are today a weapon of revisionists and imperialists.

Sigged for epic lulz.

No rights = the suck

No rights = the suckWell, if you just wait till others grant rights to you, you suck. Rights are insubstantial anyway.

Rights are insubstantial anyway.

The fact that you're allowed to say that is a result of the freedom of speech. I'd ask that you refrain from using it if it's so insubstantial.

The fact that you're allowed to say that is a result of the freedom of speech. I'd ask that you refrain from using it if it's so insubstantial.If I want to say something I will find a way, and I dwell on no freedom of speech granted to me by an abstract set of rules. Rights exist only on paper, and how humans act is an entirely different matter.

If I want to say something I will find a way, and I dwell on no freedom of speech granted to me by an abstract set of rules. Rights exist only on paper, and how humans act is an entirely different matter.

Wow, here's me completely agreeing.

If I want to say something I will find a way, and I dwell on no freedom of speech granted to me by an abstract set of rules. Rights exist only on paper, and how humans act is an entirely different matter.

I agree with this too.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, but in this instance it's a clear attempt to limit freedom of speech. I can't see how the lawsuits would work though, unless they're going to hold their own show-trial and then illegally seize any assets of the offending country that they can get their hands on.

Perhaps the answer is for everyone at once to write, talk, blog, anything and everything that falls into the criteria. Let's see if they can sue the whole world.

Kosovo and Palestine.

Quite. I see now how it was potential candidates.

If I want to say something I will find a way, and I dwell on no freedom of speech granted to me by an abstract set of rules. Rights exist only on paper, and how humans act is an entirely different matter.

No matter how you cut it, it's still you exercising a right. You're arguing semantics here.

no there isn't.

there are those that have numerous of members as well as those that are 'popular' but there is NO Offical National Religion.

prove me wrong. Present the decree or law stating what that Offical National Religion is.

which is not a product of the Governmental laws but of the people voting that person into office.

Quite true. However that does not negate the influence and expectations ones religion has on the electorate. If you campaign in the US without praising god in someway you will not win.

what would happen if a candidate's religion was never brought up?

A new age of enlightenment? :p

I hope so. but it is something to keep an eye on.

there is so much to keep an eye on these days!

The civilized West must never bow before ideological dirt such as Islam, or any other abrahmic religion. Belief does not deserve respect, it deserves medication.

Certainly then, your beliefs regarding religion would require you to be put on medication, no?

If I want to say something I will find a way, and I dwell on no freedom of speech granted to me by an abstract set of rules. Rights exist only on paper, and how humans act is an entirely different matter.

Yet those abstract rules seem to have an inordinate sway over the we act...

Predictable. So very predictable.

Aye and nothing of value added either.

Say, didn't he say he went to a private christian school? How ironic.

I find it astonishing that there are groups of people who believe that you have the right to worship whatever invisible man you want(especially if it's the same invisible man they worship), but are a second class citizen if you were born with a vagina or enjoy the wrong kind of sex.

I find it even more astonishing that I'm the crazy one. :p

You're no more crazy than Wonko the Sane ;)


a cookie for the first person to get the reference

You're no more crazy than Wonko the Sane ;)


a cookie for the first person to get the reference

You're an idiot.

You're an idiot.

That's not exactly news...

That's not exactly news...

Whoops. I was thinking of Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolongued. Sorry.

Blah blah blah bourgeoise blah blah blah abstract blah blah blah emotionalist blah blah blah bourgeois blah blah blah oppressed workers blah blah blah Marx blah blah.

Anyway, go and torture those kittens/kulaks/whoever. I'm going to go oppress the proletariat. We'll see who does the more harm.

While I don't really support his message, your shabby mocking of him does nothing to convince me of your point. You only make yourself look like a fool.
While our civil rights might seem to play into the hands of the rich and powerful, a lack of civil rights only does so more. The capitalist high order would be replaced only with a socialist one who would act in the same way, perhaps with a slightly more even share of money.

The regrettable imperfections of humanity mean that any ruler given power while the people have no rights will eventually bend the lack of rights to his or her will. The only true socialists were those that never came to power. As soon as a socialist is in power, they become a socialist no more, waving the baton of power and presiding over others.

While I regret the fact that the wealthy maintain a huge degree of control over modern western society, I fail to see how an oppressive socialist government would do anything to sort out the mess.

Castro and Chavez (and to a lesser degree Morales) are the only socialist leaders who can claim to have implemented socialism successfully. Soviet Russia is a poor example of communism, as it replaced one privileged class with another. The fact that the US government is determined to destroy socialism as an ideology makes it even more remarkable that Chavez can maintain democratic control over Venezuela.

Economic control lends itself easily to social control, placing the biggest problem for communist/socialist regimes. The added challenge of US attempts to control the media of socialist nations means that many are forced to control media output or face eviction from office by an entirely undemocratic US-funded opposition, based on foreign media control.

This control of the media by the state for initially well-meaning if misguided attempts to keep a country free makes unjust media control by the state an almost irresistible prospect for some leaders. The opportunity to suppress one scandal is tempting, and perhaps justified, but it leads to the erosion of the free press, and thus the moral downfall of many communist/socialist regimes.


I don't pretend not to be biased on this, I would confess to being a socialist if anyone were to accuse me of it. In fact, I would say I'm proud of being a socialist in my own definition of the word. :rolleyes:

While I don't really support his message, your shabby mocking of him does nothing to convince me of your point. You only make yourself look like a fool.

Actually, no. See, the problem is that Andaras, in his entire posting history, has shown that he basically repeats the same message over and over again, regardless of the subject. Hence, I count at the very least four and probably far more that have become so tired of hearing him say the same things over and over again that they can basically foresee what he is going to post before he does it.

I think he's even managed to unite most of the 'left' of NSG against him.

Also, might I add that he supports Stalinism to the point where it's sickening? He has encouraged murder of non-communists in Soviet Russia and whenever anyone has pointed out to him that not everyone killed was anti or even just non-communist, he sticks his fingers in his ears and doesn't go "lalala" he goes "bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois"

I bet if he responds to this post, he will call me bourgeois, because he does that to EVERYTHING.

Actually, no. See, the problem is that Andaras, in his entire posting history, has shown that he basically repeats the same message over and over again, regardless of the subject. Hence, I count at the very least four and probably far more that have become so tired of hearing him say the same things over and over again that they can basically foresee what he is going to post before he does it.

I think he's even managed to unite most of the 'left' of NSG against him.

Also, might I add that he supports Stalinism to the point where it's sickening? He has encouraged murder of non-communists in Soviet Russia and whenever anyone has pointed out to him that not everyone killed was anti or even just non-communist, he sticks his fingers in his ears and doesn't go "lalala" he goes "bourgeois bourgeois bourgeois"

I bet if he responds to this post, he will call me bourgeois, because he does that to EVERYTHING.

Essentially you get the feeling he onlys types in the spaces marked "......." which have be preprepared by the committee and placed amongst extracts from "Party Line" monthly. Christ help the poor bastards who ring up the contact number for phone sex......

While I don't really support his message, your shabby mocking of him does nothing to convince me of your point.

I think I really did make my point there, but I'm not entirely sure if you knew what my point was. I wasn't in truth, responding to his claims (as refutation or otherwise), because I know from experience how silly it is. The only thing he will do is post more of the same, cliched propaganda, accuse everyone else of being reactionary capitalists or whatever, and callously dismiss human rights, civil rights, laud Josef Fucking Stalin and deny atrocities on the scale and scope of the Holocaust.

And if you have any doubts about all that, a quick search of his posting history will show ample examples supporting it.

You only make yourself look like a fool.

I think not. I think I'd be a fool if I let myself get trapped into arguing with (and, invariably, getting angry at) someone who will sit there and try to tell me that mass murder is a good thing. Most of the time I give most posters a chance, dissect their arguments and respond to them, but at this point I don't have much to say to him.

While our civil rights might seem to play into the hands of the rich and powerful, a lack of civil rights only does so more. The capitalist high order would be replaced only with a socialist one who would act in the same way, perhaps with a slightly more even share of money.

The regrettable imperfections of humanity mean that any ruler given power while the people have no rights will eventually bend the lack of rights to his or her will. The only true socialists were those that never came to power. As soon as a socialist is in power, they become a socialist no more, waving the baton of power and presiding over others.

While I regret the fact that the wealthy maintain a huge degree of control over modern western society, I fail to see how an oppressive socialist government would do anything to sort out the mess.

Castro and Chavez (and to a lesser degree Morales) are the only socialist leaders who can claim to have implemented socialism successfully. Soviet Russia is a poor example of communism, as it replaced one privileged class with another. The fact that the US government is determined to destroy socialism as an ideology makes it even more remarkable that Chavez can maintain democratic control over Venezuela.

Economic control lends itself easily to social control, placing the biggest problem for communist/socialist regimes. The added challenge of US attempts to control the media of socialist nations means that many are forced to control media output or face eviction from office by an entirely undemocratic US-funded opposition, based on foreign media control.

This control of the media by the state for initially well-meaning if misguided attempts to keep a country free makes unjust media control by the state an almost irresistible prospect for some leaders. The opportunity to suppress one scandal is tempting, and perhaps justified, but it leads to the erosion of the free press, and thus the moral downfall of many communist/socialist regimes.

Pretty well said, but it's wasted effort if you intend it to mean something to Andy. He of the 'it's OK to oppress, torture and kill people as long as it's in the name of the Revolution' view.

Oh.

Firstly, I have little idea of who always says what, this being my 15th post and all. Now several people have all made it pretty obvious what this guy is about, I see why GT said what he did. I understand the "blah blah [Insert Keyword]" post now, as it actually seems a structured rebuttal to the picture of him you three have painted.

Without knowing forum personalities, GT's post seemed like the bone-headed one, and it seemed like he was being attacked for being a communist. Now it seems more like he was being attacked because he's an idiot.

Also, I'd like to make it pretty clear that I despise his brand of so called "socialism", not that I think any political ideology can mean anything at all if the basis of it is oppression, as it loses all possible accountability.

The fact that you’re allowed to say that is a result of the freedom of speech.
No, the legal right of freedom of speech protects one to say what the want to, with certain caveats. It’s not as if it is physically impossible to speak one’s thoughts without such a legal right in place.

And once we start examining rights, especially ‘inalienable’ human rights, they look stranger and stranger. I don’t deny that for citizens of the Western world, codified human rights have often helped in preventing civil rights abuses; but not always. If we look beyond pacified countries, human rights aren’t much use.

And we get into some tricky water if we try and look at where rights come from, or how they are established (outside of the law courts). Human rights are one of the watchwords of Western society; along with ‘democracy’, it’s tough getting a reasonable opinion across suggesting we examine human rights without people railing against you.

Personally, though I see some benefits to human rights (and rights in general), the very concept of them doesn’t sit comfortably with me, and I think it’s something that needs to be discussed calmly.

Greater Trostia, your a perfect example of the modern capitulation of socialists to the ruling class, you say your 'popular' and 'mainstream' views to be accepted by the opinion of the ruling class and instead concede the struggle of millions of workers in the Soviet Union against capitalism (be it kulaks, revisionists, fascists etc) to the dustbin of history. You accepted right-wing history as fact, and bath in the self-gratifying rhetoric of the anti-communists and bash 'Stalin' and 'totalitarianism' at any chance. You sir are a good example of opportunism.

Greater Trostia, your a perfect example of the modern capitulation of socialists to the ruling class, you say your 'popular' and 'mainstream' views to be accepted by the opinion of the ruling class and instead concede the struggle of millions of workers in the Soviet Union against capitalism (be it kulaks, revisionists, fascists etc) to the dustbin of history. You accepted right-wing history as fact, and bath in the self-gratifying rhetoric of the anti-communists and bash 'Stalin' and 'totalitarianism' at any chance. You sir are a good example of opportunism.


Blah blah blah bourgeois propaganda blah blah blah

Blah blah blah bourgeois propaganda blah blah blah
Please, I we think I know already you cannot respond to me except by one-wine infantile whining, if anything you show cowardice because you know you fail against me in debate and must resort to trolling.

Please, I we think I know already you cannot respond to me except by one-wine infantile whining, if anything you show cowardice because you know you fail against me in debate and must resort to trolling.

Wait, we debate?

Wait, we debate?

I do, you troll because it's all you can do.

I do, you troll because it's all you can do.

I only troll with you Andaras, how dare you accuse me of doing it with others? Im faithful;)

I only troll with you Andaras...
Please don’t.

It adds nothing.

Greater Trostia, your a perfect example of the modern capitulation of socialists to the ruling class, you say your 'popular' and 'mainstream' views to be accepted by the opinion of the ruling class and instead concede the struggle of millions of workers in the Soviet Union against capitalism (be it kulaks, revisionists, fascists etc) to the dustbin of history. You accepted right-wing history as fact, and bath in the self-gratifying rhetoric of the anti-communists and bash 'Stalin' and 'totalitarianism' at any chance. You sir are a good example of opportunism.

Yes, thanks, that's what I was just talking about.

Knights of Liberty, cut it out. It wasn't all that funny the first time.