Hmm… I’m not saying this would be accepted in the U.S., but it would again put us at odds with the U.N.  This would be a clear violation of the First Amendment as it aims to curtail speech that offends religion, specifically Islam critics.  Religious groups and advocates for free speech say the resolution is spreading Sharia law to the Western World

What kool-aid are they drinking?  Why are we supporting them again?

Here is a segment on it with Lou Dobbs, and in it he interviews Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair Columnist and author of God is Not Great: How Religions Poison Everything.

Hitchens said:

“That is totalitarianism defined.  It’s a rape and butchery of the First Amendment of our Constitution.”

I agree with Hitchens on very little, but the comment above I do.  Even if the blasphemy is directed toward Christians.  I don’t like hearing blasphemy, but in the United States you have the constitutional right to be theologically wrong.

What do you think?  Bulldozers as Dobbs suggests?

HT: International Free Press Society via Pundit & Pundette

3 comments
  1. “I don’t like hearing blasphemy, but in the United States you have the constitutional right to be theologically wrong.”

    This statement is a small tidbit of proof that liberal and progressive whining about evangelicals beinng totalitarian is plain hogwash. Beautiful balancing act between Libertarianism and So Con values, I commend you. Burke would have been proud.

  2. Anybody who knows anything about evangelicals should know this. You can't coerce somebody into the Kingdom of God.

    Actually many evangelical leaders have been the most tolerant and protectors of religious freedom precisely because of their faith. Now that doesn't mean we think it is true, just believe that they should have the right to practice freely without fear of persecution or reprisal. And we have the freedom to share our faith with those who don't yet believe, etc.

    Unless it is abusive, etc.

  3. I want to know what on earth has gotten into the UN for even discussing the possibility of limiting dissent on religion?

    Surely, each abrahamistic religion defames the others by claiming to be the infallible word of god and that the others are at best mistaken and at worst the work of satan. Such a move would make every religious person on the planet guilty many times over.

    I find the whole concept as ridiculous and the tribal bickering, bronze-age myths and fairly tales contained in the holy books such a resolution intends to protect.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

All Americans Should Be Concerned for the President’s Safety

Peter Baker of the New York Times should realize that all Americans of every ideological stripe should be concerned about the safety of the President Obama.

Sebelius Unsure of How Many Obamacare Enrollees Have Paid

Until Obamacare enrollees pay their health care plans will not go into…

Palin Coming to Des Moines? (4th Update)

Iowa Family Policy Center ACTION sent out the following press release last…

Suffering Indignity at the Hands of the TSA

Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit recorded the video above at the…