Well, at least they’re against it

The Obama administration has come out strongly against the U.N.’s resolution to prohibit “defamation of religion”, a concept so very vague and loosely applicable that anything remotely critical of faith or that offends pearl-clutchers would be criminalized and punishable by law. Now that they oppose it, how ’bout they do something about it?

"Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters. "I strongly disagree."

Clinton said the United States was opposed to negative depictions of specific faiths and would always fight against belief-based discrimination. But she said a person's ability to practice their religion was entirely unrelated to another person's right to free speech.

"The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faith will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions," Clinton said. "These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse."

Glad to see they still have some common sense in these matters. Anti-blasphemy laws are never acceptable. Religion is not immune or superior to criticism, and should not be treated as such. In fact, if anything, criticism of religion should be actively encouraged, if it gets people to open their eyes and realize what a crock of gator turd it all is. I’m sorry, but if your faith is shaky enough to be rattled and you to be offended by mere (and honest) criticism, then you deserve to have your beliefs mocked and exposed as the silliness they are, if it snaps you back to reality.

(via Pharyngula)
Technorati tags: free speech · blasphemy · UN · Obama administration