U.N. rights council passes religious defamation resolution

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

[Oxygen]

Hello.

In Sweden where I live, the number of Muslim in the population is rising. The larger the Muslim part of the population becomes, the higher the risk of

a ) parliamentary enforced limitations of freedoms, like the topic of this thread, free speach. But in the long run, say 100 years, all women may be forced to wear headscarves, like in Iran.

b ) non-parliamentary enforced limitations of that kind. Like the murder of the anti-islamist Theo van Gogh in Holland.

I have a need. That is the need to live without the worry of these threats to those freedoms. I would rather live in a country that forbids the practice of Islam and forbids signs of Muslim faith, like headscarves, than having this worry (if the worry is fair).

In Sweden this may be implemented by sending those who violate this to an existing Muslim country, or to a newly created Muslim country which is taken out from existing Swedish land.

I have thought about moving to China, in hope that they are harsh on the practice of Islam.

This is an old question I think: when you are in or when you might come into in a situation where there are only bad options to choose from, which would you choose? And is making a choice unliberal and non-action the only liberal thing to do? (I may have choosen and phrased these questions in a unfair manner).

Would forbidding the practice of Islam ever become justified? When?

Any thoughts?

Edited May 1, 2009 by Oxygen

[Jake_Ellison]

Would forbidding the practice of Islam ever become justified? When?

Any thoughts?

Never. What Swedes need to do instead is come up with a culture that is more sensible than Islam. Then, the Muslim part of the population will just change, and adopt the better ideas which dominate the culture. But obviously, talk of banning religions in the name of preserving freedom is not better than whatever Islam preaches. (nor is the multiculturalist, all ideas are equal ideology which currently dominates European culture)

This may seem odd to you, but I think your proposal is perfectly in tune with the socialist, multiculturalist European culture, only one step closer to its inevitable conclusion: fascism. Out of all the books popping into my mind to explain why that is, I think Atlas Shrugged is actually the first, because it makes it so clear that knowingly acting against one's principles is the greatest evil.

But there are many books that explain the rise of fascism itself, in Germany and elsewhere. ( Dr. Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels for instance, but the subject has been covered by plenty of non-Objectivists too)

[DavidOdden]

The larger the Muslim part of the population becomes, the higher the risk of

a ) parliamentary enforced limitations of freedoms, like the topic of this thread, free speach.

The root of the problem that you face is independent of and predates the recent Islamic immigrations. Freedom of speech is, in your country, not considered to be a strongly inalienable right, from which it follows that laws prohibiting "hate speech" are possible. The fact that it was possible for a student to kicked out of school for wearing a headscarf indicates a problem with the conception of individual rights and freedom on the part of the state, which I think is a much more serious problem for y'all.

[Oxygen]

The fact that it was possible for a student to kicked out of school for wearing a headscarf indicates a problem with the conception of individual rights and freedom on the part of the state, which I think is a much more serious problem for y'all.

This never happended in Sweden I think, in France it happended though.

[Oxygen]

Never. What Swedes need to do instead is come up with a culture that is more sensible than Islam. Then, the Muslim part of the population will just change, and adopt the better ideas which dominate the culture. But obviously, talk of banning religions in the name of preserving freedom is not better than whatever Islam preaches. (nor is the multiculturalist, all ideas are equal ideology which currently dominates European culture)

This may seem odd to you, but I think your proposal is perfectly in tune with the socialist, multiculturalist European culture, only one step closer to its inevitable conclusion: fascism. Out of all the books popping into my mind to explain why that is, I think Atlas Shrugged is actually the first, because it makes it so clear that knowingly acting against one's principles is the greatest evil.

But there are many books that explain the rise of fascism itself, in Germany and elsewhere. ( Dr. Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels for instance, but the subject has been covered by plenty of non-Objectivists too)

A better culture is one of the alternatives I think about. I try to be virtuos.

Your'e probably right that that wish I sometimes have to forbid Islam is fascistic.

I've read Atlas Shrugged and it really made a big impression on me (may sounds like i'm joking but i'm not).

[James Bond]

Wonderful. Great. At least dystopian novels are always dramatic/passionate..we have that to look forward to at least.

[DavidOdden]

This never happended in Sweden I think, in France it happended though.

In May 2006, the Skolverket held that when the Minerva school in Umeå did this, it was improper.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

[i thought about starting another thread for this, but it is along the lines of the EU not wanting to defame religion.]

Here is an interesting story out of California in which a student sued a teacher for saying that Creationism is superstitious nonsense.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518864,00.html

Evidently, this judge thought it was a violation of the religious establishment clause for a teacher to claim that Creationism was illogical and had no evidence.

But Selna [the judge] ruled Friday that one comment, where Corbett referred to creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense," did violate Farnan's constitutional rights.

In his ruling, the judge was basically going by the following interpretation: "The establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law establishing religion. The clause has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility."

This is just one more reason schools ought to be privately run; especially if the establishment clause is going to prevent teachers from promoting reason and logic over superstition.