STFU! #1: OIC and Arab League

In response to this article:

[DEAD LINK] http://www.pendar.net/en/main1.asp?a_id=338

I suggest that the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) take a moment to SHUT THE FUCK UP and RETHINK.

First off, just because an organization/government doesn't like what someone says doesn't mean that they don't have the right to say it. You don't have to like it, and you don't have to be silent about it - go ahead and protest, argue, impose sanctions, and generally make as much noise as you want. But don't piss and whine to the United Nations and beg to be shielded from the big bad rest of the world like a pack of prepubescent girls.

Nothing is so sacrosanct as to be immune from satire. The Celtic Gods, Nordic Gods, Eris Herself, Jesus, JFK, the Pope, the U.N., my wedding tackle, my wife, my girlfriend and my mother don't get special exceptions or protections, and neither does Islam or it's prophet.

Second, the complaints lodged by these organizations have proven the point that the Jyllands Posten newspaper was trying to make by commissioning them in the first place: Censorship of the media - or any point of view at all - inhibits the ability of a society to have an effective public dialog. While they apply it specifically to the context of the Danish social dialog, it appears to me that it is an apparent fact that while it is important to consider the emotional and political impact of any statement within a social discourse, it is of no benefit to inhibit that discourse through censorship of expression in the media from either side.

Third and finally, the UN, for all that its goals are admirable, is unfortunately something of a joke in terms of the respect that it commands, and its ability to enforce it's policies in a meaningful way. The UN is little more than charnel house of dead policy.

For the UN to pass a resolution banning attacks on religious beliefs has two effects both of which are undesirable: first, it would inhibit social discourse by, at a minimum, limiting the freedom of the press in those nations lucky enough to have such freedom; second, such a resolution would serve only to emphasize that UN policy is meaningless and unenforceable at best, and serve as evidence for the view of politically correct NWO-ism of which the institution is often accused.

Finally, it is not the mission of the UN to protect religious doctrine- if anything the UN exists to ensure the safety of the practitioners of a religion, and to ensure their political and physical freedom. The defense of religious doctrine is a matter internal to the discourse of the practitioners of that faith, and the right to critique a doctrine is one that belongs to the greater social discourse of a nation or society. it is not, however, the job of the UN to make determinations in matters of blasphemy or heresy.