TED Conversations

Obey No1kinobe


This conversation is closed.

Should blasphemy be outlawed by the UN?

Some Islamic countries are pushing for ''international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred''


Essentially this is making protection from blasphemy a human right. Making it a right not to be offended by someone critiquing or mocking your religious views.

Essentially, if you hold genital mutilation of children sacred or any other harmful religious belief sacred it is proposed to make it illegal to condemn this.

I hope Australia does not sign this.

What a clash of values. What a clash of civilisations. Western enlightenment values versus medieval religion.

I suggest most human rights are human constructs that are granted rather than intrinsic. They aim t improve the human condition. Also none are absolute. The most difficult ethical issues often involve a clash of rights or values. Freedom of religion to lock up women versus equal rights and freedom of movement. Freedom of speech versus slander and liable.

I support individual freedom of religion up to the point it harms other people or when people try and force their religious taboos on others who do not believe. If there is a secular argument in parallel fair enough.

I suggest the world is better off allowing blasphemy, allowing religion and theocracies to be criticised or mocked. While I don't see the point of mindless provocative put downs, religion should not be off limits.

Perhaps the trickiest aspect is where the comments have a rascist aspect to them.

Isn't it interesting how freedom from religious insult is now being positioned by some alongside the right to life, freedom from slavery (what if slavery is sanctioned by your religion?), freedom from torture, equality before the law.

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief (not in some religions),

Freedom of opinion and expression - not if this gets up.

What do you think


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • Oct 2 2012: Gentlemen gentlemen, please, i somehow agree with all you but i think there many limitations to the extent of knowledge of someone like you who has lived in a modern society with freedom of speech and religion. you are not seeing the whole picture, do you?. i think, with all due respect many of you do not understand who is really behind the face of this individual or society you are dealing with. i lived my entire life around these people who hold some sacred ideas about prophet mohammad, god, and emams and etc. most of these people have been kept apart from the rest of the world by their government and regimes. they have been fed by their local clargymen and were somehow deceived and mislead by what they've been told, i can not describe here the whole process of how their government have been able to do such a thing or why these people are acting in this strange way, due to lack of time and energy. neverthelese you can't blame everything on their shortcoming and lack of understanding of this modern world because they've been kept in isolation from the rest of civilization. Comon you don't think they've been born this way do you?. i'm using this metaphor to make my point clear " after the problem is solved the answer seems quite obvious to everyone." and the relatedness of this phrase to my point is because you've been raised in a society who's rules of the game ( your expectation from others, civil rights, the extend of freedom which has been given to you, and etc) all of them has been made clear to you, build in to you from the start, that's because they seem so obvious to you now that you've become a grown up. in order to understand these parts of the world you have live their standards try to understand them from their perspective and the most and extremely difficult part is trying to come with some innovative ideas of yours about how to really help them try to understand modern standards of living cause otherwise you're just gonna make everything worst.
    • Oct 2 2012: @ Ezra Masri,
      Sorry Ezra, but you are wrong when you say that truth is relative. For example: the proposition "there is a book on the table in front of me" is either true or false depending on the physical state of being the world is in at the time the proposition is uttered. If I am in my office and proposition is true then it remains true for a person just entering my office. To suppose that a proposition can be both true and false at the same time for different people is utter nonsense.

      More on topic for this discussion: banning blasphemy is essentially trying to outlaw giving verbal offence. It is a direct violation of free speech rights. It is outright kowtowing to dictators and theocratic regimes to even consider such a ridiculous proposition. The very idea that one may not speak in such a way that offends another person is a dictate of politeness, not a dictate of morality. It is a valuable life lesson to learn that not everyone thinks as you do, and that many find your deeply held beliefs to be not only wrong, but laughable. I see no reason not to extend such a lesson to any person.
    • Oct 3 2012: Making a distinction and making it illegal is very different. Anyone can tall you that the inoccence of the Muslims is in bad taste but only the fanatics will tell you that it's should be banned. Additionally, you claim that he companies that operate in theocratic regimes should self censor, I turn that around and tell you that if the theocracies want to accept the progress of the Internet then they have to accept the unpleasant side of it ( unrestrained satire). Finally anyone who is offended can avoid watching what offends them.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.