Austin Dacey serves as a respresentative to the United Nations for CFI, and is also on the editorial staff of Skeptical Inquirer and Free Inquiry magazines. His writings have appeared in numerous publications including the New York Times and USA Today. His new book is The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life.

In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Austin Dacey details his trip to Geneva, Switzerland on behalf of the Center for Inquiry’s UN mission. He describes the UN lobbying efforts of the Center and its response to the United Nations Human Rights Council’s resolution “Combatting the Defamation of Religions.” He explains that despite legitimate concerns about stereotyping Muslims or racial profiling, this resolution equates any criticism or satire of religious beliefs with bigotry. He contrasts Europe’s position on free speech with the United States’ and how it is used by Islamic countries to justify their blasphemy laws, which often carry mandatory sentences of death or life in prison. He talks about how the Organization of the Islamic Conference at the United Nations aims to build into international human rights such legal standards that actually outlaw offensive speech against religions. And he argues that what should be protected under international human rights laws are individuals, and not ideas — that persons should be protected from harm and discrimination, as opposed to ideologies being protected from being criticized or satirized.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org

Yay!! You’re back!!!! We’ve all missed you!!!!

Attacking freedom of expression is far more dangerous than attacks against people. Humanity produces people at a prodigious rate, but good ideas are hard to come by. So the sworn enemies of free thought and the proliferation of ideas are always quick to demonize the free-thinkers.

If the only way for a religion to prosper is through sordid speech control, then I say that religion has very little to offer except mental slavery. If you believe that your faith is wonderful and beneficial, then put it out there for all to see and consider. Open it to spriited discussion and critical examination.

Of course, this rarely happens. Religion being the proverbial ‘opiate of the masses’, most religions are very afraid of any criticism. The radical Muslim movement is clearly in this camp and directly opposed to freedoms of every sort. Why do they fear examination and discussion? Perhaps because the inherent contradictions and moral anomalies would then become apparent.

In any event, this is exactly the kind of oppressive thinking often disguised as political correctness.

And yet another reason I find the transnationalist movement dangerous to my freedom.

I wonder if this movement is more defensive than offensive? In other words, those Muslim countries that have blasphemy laws do not want to be labeled as violators of human rights, so they push this initiative to defend against such accusations. If the resolution is worded in such a way that it concerns ONLY domestic applications, then it’s less heinous than an attempt to apply such concerns internationally (in other words, Muslims in Saudi Arabia could bring legal action against the Danish cartoonist).

And yet another reason I find the transnationalist movement dangerous to my freedom.

Whoa! Let’s not tar international institutions with a brush from a non-binding resolution made by a powerless subsidiary of the UN. Would you want the rest of the world judging the USA for a stupid resolution of some group that just happens to receive some funds from the federal government?

I will tar any international institution that attemps to supersede the US Constitution with some wacky political correctness phlegm.

The rest of the world does, in fact, judge the US on the most specious of grounds. The UN is a feckless waste of money and resources. Send it to Geneva as a sort of debating and posturing organization, and not as a impotent ‘peacekeeping’ outfit. There should be no ‘binding’ resolutions, as those are a practical farce. Only organizations like NATO can exert appreciable amounts of force where it does any good. The new UN could then be a place for diplomacy and meetings, instead of a totaltarian hyperbole machine.

No, I don’t like nor have any faith in the UN. Howja guess?

OK, I’ll get around to starting up a discussion of the UN in the political forum.

OK, Chris…I tend to respect your views and often learn a lot from our exchange.

Thanks.

As little as I think of right wing radio loudmouths, I wouldn’t want them silenced by law any more than I would support this kind of nonsense. 
Outside of direct incitement to riot or to harm someone, I am against limiting speech.

I like my first amendment right and I would not want anyone curbing that.  I prefer to say criticize religion as I see fit.

We would NEVER be able to agree on what is offensive, we would was a lot of time trying to be PR. Suppose the police were chasing a suspect with a police dog that they deem to be ‘unclean’ and will not allow the officer to do his work. Suppose the hindis get offended by all of the restaurants or markets that sell meat, or the ones that sell beef, and then the jews and muslims get offended over the ones who sell pork. The ones whose ‘sabbath’ is on Sat are offended that anything is open on that day, and the ones whose ‘sabbath’ on Sun object to having anything happening on that day. You could go on and on ad absurdum. There is almost nothing you could do that would not be offensive to at least one religion!

asanta - 09 May 2009 09:52 PM

There is almost nothing you could do that would not be offensive to at least one religion!

Witness the recent declaration by one Israeli health official that “swine flu” shouldn’t be called “swine flu” because it is offensive to Jews and Muslims who regard pork as unclean.

As free people we have the right to discuss, dissect, debate, deconstruct, condemn, lampoon, cartoon, satirize, demonize, criticize, analyze, sythesize, and caricature any and all ideas. Those who are offended by such things are free to state their rebuttals in whatever venues are open to them. There simply is no such thing as a right to not be offended. Being offended is not an argument, and it entitles no one to any special consideration.

And the notion that religions, which have been responsible for some of the worst ideas in the history of ideas, should be granted some sort of exemption from all but the most well-mannered and respectful criticisms (and sometimes even those) is nothing short of absurd.

It shows the was the world has changed in that we have had ‘swine’ flu before and no one has ever objected to the point that it has been given publicity, or perhaps it has been objected to before, and the journalist have ignored it as the ignorant rant it obviously is.