Politics
Obama administration values feel-good religionism over free speech
A good friend just sent me an article about an op-ed the talented Jonathan Turley wrote for USA Today (which is generally a little less talented, journalistically speaking, but that’s a different post). He discussed that the Obama administration helped pass the UN resolution we discussed in March which would recognize exceptions to free speech for “negative racial and religious stereotyping”. Although it sounds nice, it has extreme implications:
In the resolution, the administration aligned itself with Egypt, which has long been criticized for prosecuting artists, activists and journalists for insulting Islam. For example, Egypt recently banned a journal that published respected poet Helmi Salem merely because one of his poems compared God to a villager who feeds ducks and milks cows. The Egyptian ambassador to the U.N., Hisham Badr, wasted no time in heralding the new consensus with the U.S. that “freedom of expression has been sometimes misused” and showing that the “true nature of this right” must yield government limitations.
The editorial has a great list of blasphemy-related cases in the past few years. Under this UN resolution, the international community would support the prosecution of these free-speakers. And by aligning with them, the Obama administration deserves some scorn for their part in it.
For as many things as I think our president has done right, this is not one of them.
Thoughts?
Disclaimer: The views expressed by an individual contributor to this blog are not necessarily shared by all members of FreeThought Fort Wayne. That is what makes this organization so interesting. Commenters on the FreeThought Fort Wayne blog are expected to abide by our comment policy. About the author: Andy Welfle is a marketing professional in a non-profit arts organization by day, and a net junkie, an Apple fanboy, and a freethinker by night. Follow him on twitter: twitter.com/awelfle. | Read more from this author
The Obama administration values feel-good religionism over free speech by Andy Welfle, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Tags: Barack Obama, blasphemy day, church state separation, free speech, human rights, Obama, religious intolerance, separation of church and state, united nations Discussion
8 comments for “Obama administration values feel-good religionism over free speech”
Post a comment
Categories
Our Readers
Eh. UN resolutions are like pie crusts. Easily made, easily broken. Such a resolution doesn’t supersede the First Amendment, and it shouldn’t be positioned as if it could.
Freedom of speech is one of those rights that should make everyone feel severely conflicted about. It protects things which make my blood curl with rage as well as my own right to offend you or anyone else. It is the opposite of all things “politically correct” and puts any “sensitivity training” program to shame. That being said, it is a fundamental piece of our American heritage; one that we seem more and more happy to shelve in our pursuit of a placid existence.
While I’m sure not every member of the UN has a constitutional clause entitling their citizens to a “certain unalienable [right]” of freedom of speech, this UN resolution is in direct opposition to our very first Amendment.
Furthermore, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that freedom of speech is “highest aspiration of the common people.”
Clearly the underlying issue is a desire to control a people’s response to any given stimulus. As we fade away from a profound sense of personal responsibility to care for and respect each other and our differences, the only (apparent) safety net would be a mandated forbiddance of that which is maliciously provocative. And like most grand, sweeping gestures, the finer points have been lost to extremism and a pervasive feel-good momentum.
If you will allow me to piss you off, and you will admit that what I said made you want to hit me in the face, perhaps then we will again make forward progress and our current administration will feel less need to baby-sit.
Yes – definitely disappointed Barack’s administration supported this. Only emboldens those religious fanatics who want justification their religion or god is holier than thou.
Off topic, but is anyone else planning to see Tom Flynn speak in Noblesville Sunday about Robert Green Ingersoll?
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/Indy/events/tom_flynn_ingersoll_presentation/
Tom Flynn will be in Bloomington at IU-B on Saturday. It looks to be a good talk.
We recently had John F. Haught, a Catholic theologian who spends his time trying to reconcile evolution with Catholicism and attacking atheism, on campus for a talk “Evolution and Faith: What’s at Stake”.
I found the talk an exercise in futility on his part because it consisted of him defending evolution and then trying to tack on Christianity via the infinitesimal number of verses that one could cite to justify his position. If his clinging to Catholicism and prooftexting wasn’t so pathetic, it would have been funny.
http://www.amazon.com/John-F.-Haught/e/B001IGHJ2C/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1
I don’t know if you’d count this as a development: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33486054/ns/world_news-world_faith/
Gerald,
Thanks for updating us! The Administration’s policy reversal is refreshing. Do you know when it comes up for a vote? I couldn’t find information about that in either of the articles.
I’m not sure, but perhaps next month: “a similar resolution will be considered for adoption by the General Assembly” (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=477_1256679074)