Promoting Respect for Religious Differences By Suzanne Nossel, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Bureau of International Organization Affairs.
Our government is engaged in subtle, highly polished dissembling. In order to point out the clever lies, I have reproduced excerpts from the article in block quote format, with Helvetica or Arial type face, interspersed with my commentary. I have added bold font emphasis to make the lies easier to spot.
Take a close look at the title of the article, in bold blue text above. Do you spot the lie? The article is about a counter proposal offered as a substitute for the OIC's campaign to outlaw criticism of Islam. It is not about respecting differences, it is about respecting Islam. When the differences between Christianity and Islam are considered, the differences are so stark that respect is impossible.
Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, sent to save sinners through acceptance of God's grace. We believe that he was crucified, died and was resurrected. Muslims believe that Isa, their name for Jesus, was fully human, Allah's slave, not God's son, was not crucified, neither died nor resurrected and will return as a genocidal warlord who will lead the Muslim army in its final conquest, exterminating the Jews. How in Hell can any sentient person exepct us to respect that blasphemy? The details, for those who don't know, are documented in The Defamation of Jesus Christ.
Over the last decade, we have witnessed a campaign to attempt to counter religious hatred through bans on speech under the rubric of prohibitions on the “defamation of religions.” This effort has taken root in a series of resolutions at the U.N.’s General Assembly in New York and its Human Rights Council in Geneva.Far from attempting to counter religious hatred, the OIC, as the representative of Islam in the absence of a Caliphate, is acting out religious hatred by attempting to impose Islam's blasphemy law upon the entire world through the agency of the United Nations. Religious hatred is not the issue. Defamation is not the issue. Proscribing defamation by law would not reduce hatred in any case, it would only cause it to fester. Take a close look at Islamic law, quoted from Reliance of the Traveller, Book O.
- O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam
- -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);
- -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);
- -6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
- -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;
-16- to revile the religion of Islam;
-19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;
- O11.10 The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:
-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;
-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.
- O8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
- O8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.
Islam's Hellbent determination to impose its blasphemy law on us is not about defamation, it is about supremacism. Islam claims to have a monopoly on divine truth, all else is false. They are attempting to impose through "international law" what they can not yet impose by force of arms.
Some U.N. member states supportive of these resolutions are banding together to try to impose a global ban on offensive speech in the form of a binding instrument under international law.Any criticism of Allah, Moe & their doctrines & practices is offensive to Islam. The prime examples they cite are the Motoons and Fitna:. Although the most famous of the cartoons depicts an explosive device, which Moe never had in his possession, he was, by his own admission, a terrorist.
The irony of this effort is that the concept of “defamation of religion” has been used to crack down on religious minorities that espouse beliefs deemed by the State to defame a national or majority-supported religion. Moreover, many of the countries that support the defamation of religion apply the concept to protect one religion only, and are — within their own countries — accepting of hostile language and acts that target minority faiths.Irony? No, that is the intended result, not a misapplication. Defamation of Islam is a shibboleth created for political purposes, not a real and substantive issue.
These contradictions demonstrate that the drive to impose a global ban on offensive speech will not protect members of all religions on an equal basis, as U.N. resolutions and international legal norms must do. Nor will they address the specific and legitimate concerns about the treatment and mistreatment of Muslim minorities globally. Concerns about the treatment of Muslim minorities warrant concerted action on the international stage, but through steps and measures that actually work, rather than bans on free speech.Equality of application would not make Islam's blasphemy laws acceptable. If you shield Judiasm, Christianity and other religions from criticism along with Islam, you still make it impossible to accurately identify and characterize the implaccable foe who has declared and is prosecuting war against us. Had Hitler declared Mein Kampf to be divine revelation and National Socialism to be a religion, we would not have been able to use those propaganda posters in WW2 under the proposed regime. The intent is, that in George Washington's words: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”[http://www.georgewashingtonsociety.org/Mission.html]
What legitimate concerns? We have laws against assault & harassment. It is not Muslims who are being murdered, raped, tortured and burned out of their homes, businesses and churches in Egypt,.Indonesia & Pakistan.
It is not mythical assaults and murders they seek to prevent, it is revelation & recognition of the truth about Islam: that it is a war cult which seeks to destroy western civilization and plunge the world into theocratic tyranny. Measures to promote that objective are undesirable, whether or not they are effective.
The United States has worked strenuously to oppose defamation-based approaches on the basis that they are inconsistent with fundamental freedoms of speech and expressions, including the values endorsed by U.N. member states through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.The United States has given lip service to the concept of freedom of expression, but, in October of '09, the State Department co-sponsored the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution, which substitutes "negative stereotyping" for "defamation", a distinction without a difference.
As an alternative to the efforts that would ban speech in order to prohibit “defamation of religion,” we are proposing to achieve the goal of promoting religious pluralism and acceptance of religious difference through the kinds of steps that we have seen be effective in our own country and across the globe: enactment and enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination; bans on hate crimes; education, training and dialogue to promote religious tolerance.Get a clue.
- 3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
- 9:30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
Islam is a predator; We are prey. For the sake of safety, we must be allowed to truthfully discuss Islam. The Ad Hoc Committee will meet again in March.. We do not know how long it will take them to produce their protocol to ICERD, but I have no doubt that, barring a miracle, President Obama or his successor will sign it and the Senate will ratify it.