With a title like that, you know what's coming up: Foam. It seems the UN's passed a ban on free speech about religion, and the thin-skinned Muslims who waved around signs calling for the death of some Danish cartoonists seem to have a lot to do with it.Most of the time I hear about the UN, it's from conspiracy nuts and wingnuts who think the US should be able to do whatever the hell they want it to do. Normally, I tend to think that if they're denouncing it, it's probably something good, but I'm definitely siding against the UN in this case. Who the fuck do they think they are, restricting one of the most basic rights of civilized society, to cater to a bunch of bloodthirsty fanatics?
So, here goes my probably illegal protestation: Islam, as written, encourages violence, sexism, and barbarism. Christianity is similarly evil, trying to drag civilization back into the dark ages. Scientology is a cult designed to make money at the expense of the psychological health of its followers. The various newage (rhymes with sewage) "neopagan" beliefs like Wicca are laughable, childish efforts to be contrary, but often end up being much like the others in their efforts to avoid criticism.
Oh, and I'm declaring myself to be an Ammyite, worshiper of Okami Amaterasu. If you ridicule her awesome game, I'll sue!
16 comments:
I hereby request that all bloggers do a similar post. Make a useful meme, for once, and spread explicit defamation of the books and organisations associated with the major and even minor sky-fairy cults.
I'll have mine done in just a bit.
One thing that bothers me about this, off the bat, is that Scientology is a religion in some countries, but not in others. So, 'defamation' is condemned by the UN in some places, and in some places, not. Somebody needs to leap on the jurisdictional issues this raises, in addition to the objection that a religion cannot be defamed unless its teachings are objectively true.
Seems this is part of a plan for some kind of 'Muslim renaissance'. It would seem to me, that what the 'Muslim states' who pushed for this need, for such a thing, is enlightened thinking.
Reading two links through again...
"Everybody is aware that there is a campaign in certain media to fuel the fire of incitement to hatred and to disfigure certain persons or figures through caricature"
... Thin-skinned... insular... clearly has no personal experience with free press... (Quite aside from the excellent showing of anti-Semitic cartoons by Jews, specifically to comment on this sort of overreaction...)
And on a similar vein...
"There are cases in Russia dealing people suing TV stations for airing South Park and the Simpsons because they see them as defamatory to Christianity"
Isn't mocking everybody, any religion they can think of included, a big part of the point of South Park?
Fortunately, the U.N. doesn't have the authority to actually ban anything; they're just "condemning" it. Basically, shaking their finger and frowning.
The idea seems to be that this resolution will form the basis of actual binding international law. At least according to my reading of the linked article's linked article.
So apparently you do have the right not to be offended.
So long as what you believe is systematized, government-recognized absurdity.
MWchase: It says "The principal force behind the vote is the Organization of Islamic States, whose next goal is a full-force UN treaty." Well, they can have all the goals they like, but that won't make it a reality. The U.S. is never going to sign such a treaty, anyway, nor could the treaty override the First Amendment even if the U.S. did sign. BTW, the article at the first link in the linked article (i.e., under "Yesterday") indicates widespread opposition among "Western democracies", which to me means this thing is going nowhere.
The idea seems to be that this resolution will form the basis of actual binding international law.
What, you mean like the binding international law against aggressive warfare, which is the fundamental basis of the UN? How's that working out, exactly?
While I completely oppose the concept, it's not going to count for shit. We (by which I mean the UK and US) have been crapping all over our supposedly binding treaty obligations (such as not invading other people's countries, nuclear disarmament, and foreign aid) for decades.
They can pass all the resolutions they like, but if they can't make them stick, it's all just hot air. It's not like they have any kind of enforcement mechanism.
There is no such thing as "binding international law". There are merely those commitments which governments choose to honour (either because it serves their interests to do so, or because it serves the interests of another actor with the capacity to compel them) and those which they do not (for exactly the same reasons).
Politically, I can't say I blame them for trying. The UN has always been primarily a tool for the furtherance of the policies of the "great powers" (ie the veto-holding permanent Security Council members), and for many decades those policies have required the thorough shafting of much of the developing world. I see this as nothing more than a symbolic attempt to stand up and say "Hey, we're fucking sick of your shit." I don't imagine that anybody involved in this resolution thinks anything's really going to come of it - it's just political posturing.
I've tried to play Okami, and it was fun for the first few hours. But then came the beyond-frustrating quick-time brush events. I'm not good enough to chain Blooms together with such a short time limit, and there are no second chances - one failure means I have to do them all again. So fie on quick-time events, and fie on Okami's developer for littering an otherwise enjoyable game with the bane of my existence and forcing me to abandon Okami for things that are actually enjoyable.
I've heard nothing but good things about Okami, but quick-time events suck major ass.
Oh, and fuck the UN for spreading cheeks on this issue.
There's a certain trick to getting consistent blooms. Partway through my first play-through, I started from scratch, and I was able to get that scene done on my first try.
Make sure you close your circles by going over the point you started, and curving into it. Closing it at a sharp angle often causes failure.
Oh, and I'll sue.
So, here goes my probably illegal protestation
Oh, don't be so fucking stupid.
I exaggerate, of course. I'm not really worshiping Ammy, either, if you didn't catch on.
But whether there's going to be any real force or not behind this thing, I spit in its face.
Another "actor" with the capacity to compel them? Someone's been taking philosophy classes :D.
Of course when someone tries to suggest exceptions, the concept of "capacity to compell" becomes broader and broader until it has no meaning any more, usually right around the time "capacity to compel" means "they care about them for their own sake".
Oh, and yes this whole thing is stupid. I suppose my main support for the UN is unlike some doomsday fanatics who get all bothered about Big Brother type scenarios (yet were oddly in favor of so much of what the last administration did to let that scenario actually take place), I actually look forward to a one-world government. Though, I should be specific, I mean a GOOD one world government. Resolutions like this are not a step in that direction.
Glads you brought that up, anonymous. I also look forward to a one world government, but I am miffed by the people who construe that into a strawman about unthinking devotion to the UN.
Right now, the UN is useless, and I am not at all sure that it will ever morph into something useful, though it has had some successes in the past.
Perhaps part of the UNs problem is that the countries that enter have to pledge allegiance to a certain set of universal human rights, but they are not actually required to follow through on this, nor does anyone ever expect them to.
I understand that this was done so that it would be an inclusive organization, rather than a rich country club, but it has had the effect of making the General Assembly a travesty.
The GA is a complete waste of time anyway. The only organ of UN that really counts is the Security Council, and the only SC members that count are the veto-holding permanent members. I fully support the general idea of the UN, but the current implementation is deeply flawed. And there is no way that the current veto-holders are ever going to give up their veto powers... because they can veto it. Catch 22.
It's the fundamental problem of governance writ very large indeed - you can only govern with the consent of the powerful, so governance inevitably becomes a tool for the maintenance and entrenchment of existing power relations. I'm afraid that I don't have any better suggestions though.
10a
"Fuck religion, it's full of shit."
"Judism?" I suspect all factions of Judism praise Moses for freeing them from slavery. This is a fine place to start.
If still slaves they'd be like the Egyptians or the Lybians:::They'd see all the cash and want some too. The structural changes in societies throughout the world, infected by the spread of Westernization, has poisoned the minds of even those whom the gods bestow/maintain favor. Iran comes to mind because, unlike Iraq, Iran has no end in sight, despite the uprising earlier, inspired likely by traitors who deliberately betray the people thinking they're "earning", much like so many blacks in civil Rights, Women's movement, etc.
Understanding the wickedness and deliberately playing this part maximizes the evil people incurr, so to understand is actually the clue of absolute disfavor, mere steps from Damnation.
The story of Exodus, where Moses freed the slaves of Egypt likely never happened, since there's little corroborating evidence.
Doesn't change the fact that the Bible/Torah text is perfectly fine with slavery as an institution. The thing in Egypt was more about them being a "chosen" people than about slavery being inherently evil.
On the main topic, one thing I was glad to hear about was a reverse in the trend and a rejection of blasphemy laws, since it violates the principle of free speech. Individual humans have rights. Religions do not.
Post a Comment