This is an interesting editorial in the Christian Science Monitor critiquing the Saudi sponsored United Nation General Assembly's gatheing on Interfaith Dialogue.
Washington - World leaders gathering at the United Nations this week for a special session of the General Assembly to advance interfaith dialogue should have no illusions that their efforts will miraculously promote mutual respect between religious communities or end abuses of religious freedom.
Saudi King Abdullah, who initiated this week's special session, is quietly enlisting the leaders' support for a global law to punish blasphemy - a campaign championed by the 56-member Organization of Islamic Conference that puts the rights of religions ahead of individual liberties.
If the campaign succeeds, states that presume to speak in the name of religion will be able to crush religious freedom not only in their own country, but abroad.
The UN session is designed to endorse a meeting of religious leaders in Spain last summer that was the brainchild of King Abdullah and organized by the Muslim World League. That meeting resulted in a final statement counseling promotion of "respect for religions, their places of worship, and their symbols ... therefore preventing the derision of what people consider sacred."
The lofty-sounding principle is, in fact, a cleverly coded way of granting religious leaders the right to criminalize speech and activities that they deem to insult religion. Instead of promoting harmony, however, this effort will exacerbate divisions and intensify religious repression.
Such prohibitions have already been used in some countries to restrict discussion of individuals' freedom vis-à-vis the state, to prevent criticism of political figures or parties, to curb dissent from prevailing views and beliefs, and even to incite and to justify violence.
They undermine the standards codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the keystone of the United Nations, by granting greater rights to religions than to individuals, including those who choose to hold no faith - or who would seek to convert.
Another stark irony hangs over the UN special session this week. Saudi Arabia is one of the world's worst abusers of religious freedom, a fact recognized by the Bush administration when it named it a "country of particular concern" under the International Religious Freedom Act in 2004. The king couldn't hold such a conference at home, where conservative clerics no doubt would purge the guest list of Jews from Israel, Baha'is, and Ahmadis.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Thanks for passing along this important alert.
What Saudi King Abdulah is up to here is despicable. His country is the farthest thing in the world from recognizing or practicing genuine religious freedom for anyone.
He and his co-conspirators are not in the least interested in genuine dialogue exploring fruitful relations between different religious bodies in the world, or in any part of the world. Their agenda is repression of religious beliefs and practices that diverge from their particular version of Islam.
It looks like Abdulah has been taking lessons from Karl Rove.
It's not just the Saudis as Pakistan is also pushing for this. Basically it is an attempt to globalize their own speech codes which are in stark contrast to Western concepts of free speech. I really hope that this doesn't go anywhere and if it does that Western countries ignore it.
There is no sacred cow that should not be killed when it's value becomes of greater importance than fundamental human rights. If a symbol becomes more important than fundamental human rights, that symbol should be thrown away.
Blaspheme is an issue for God, of God exists. Those who purport who have faith will have to trust God on this one, and not succumb to the temptation to act on behalf of God. If a sacred symbol is mocked by others, what importance is that to a person of real faith? Why should it matter that others do not see through the lens of that symbol the face of God or that others see that same face through different frames?
We need to get through this difficult phase of human history, to become flexible in matters of culture and tradition, to find that local value does not require global respect. This is extremely difficult for "true believers", and cultures which in the past have been able to retain an insular protection from the ideas and forms of others can no longer retain that. They need to get over it. This is not easy, and simply accommodating the intolerant imposition of tradition over fundamental human rights is not the answer.
The internet opens the door to an environment in which insularity is lost. We are in a period of transition, a dangerous one to be sure, but it is one in which the maladaptive forms will be pushed further and further into the margins. There will be a lot of anguish and violent reaction, but there is no getting around that the old inflexible dogmas will perish under the weight of their rigidity.
This is why it is essential that any attempt to impose or protect the sacredness of symbols and traditions within law and international agreement must not be permitted.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.