U.N. protections for Islam losing ground

[Confederate Kahanist]

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=243073

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

NEW YORK, NY - DECEMBER 15: U.S. Vice President Joe Biden presides over a high-level United Nations Security Council meeting at U.N. headquarters December 15, 2010 in New York City. The Security Council voted to restore Iraq's international standing by lifting sanctions including those that barred the country from obtaining major weapons and a civilian nuclear program. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

The Islamic-led Defamation of Religions proposal in the United Nations has been approved one more time, but by the lowest margin yet and opponents say they will keep picking at the plan until it dies.

The idea, introduced on behalf of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, "is nothing more than an effort to achieve special protections for Islam – a move to stifle religious speech," according to an analysis by Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice.

WND reported a year ago when support for the plan fell a step. Now, Sekulow noted opposition to the Islamic plan, which has been "approved" in some form in the U.N. every year since 1999, continues to rise.

The most recent vote, this week, had 67 nations voting against the plan, with 79 supporting it, and 40 nations voting "present."

The 67 "no" votes is an all-time high, the ACLJ said, and the 12-vote margin is the closest it's ever been.

"This continued momentum is very good news, and a clear sign that our education efforts are paying off. We continue to meet with more and more delegations at the U.N. and provide them with the facts on why this resolution is a dangerous threat to religious freedom," the ACLJ reported.

"Until it is defeated, this resolution is just one more way that the rights of Christians around the world are violated – especially for Christians living in Islamic countries. For some, the mere proclamation of their belief in the Gospel is enough to warrant the death penalty for blasphemy," Sekulow said.

According to the Human Rights First organization, the plan simply violates fundamental freedom of expression norms.

"[The] vote affirms that support for the defamation concept continues to dwindle. Nevertheless, we deeply regret that this text continues to distract governments from real issues that deserve greater attention , such as fighting the spread of religious violence and hatred, as well as how to counter practices of discrimination that many members of religious and other minorities face in all parts of the globe," said Tad Stahnke, of Human Rights First.

He said the vote is "unfortunate for both individuals at risk whose rights will surely be violated under the guise of prohibiting 'defamation of religions,' as well as for the standards of international norms on freedom of expression."

The organization said a "growing number" of individuals have been targeted under the concept that religions have rights and statements that don't support Islam must be punished. Just last month, Christian farm worker Asia Bibi in Pakistan was sentenced to death by hanging under the nation's blasphemy code. Her case is on appeal but could take years to resolve.

"Bibi's case is not unique," the report said. "There are scores of cases that provide ample warning of the dangers of enacting a global blasphemy law, which is what this U.N. resolution seeks to do."

Stahnke noted that the idea "in country after country … promote an atmosphere of intolerance where governments restrict freedom of expression, thought, and religion."

The organization reported several minor changes were made for the plan this year, including adding "Judeophobia" and "Christianophobia" to "Islamophobia" in the text, as well as changing the reference from "defamation of religions" to "vilification of religions."

The issue over blasphemy was addressed by Carl Moeller, chief of Open Doors USA, in a recent interview with WND, because of the pending threat to the freedoms in America.

"This is a battle for our basic freedoms," he warned.

It has so alarmed Christians around the globe that more than 200,000 have joined in Open Doors' Free to Believe effort to oppose the U.N. plan.

"This [U.N. idea] is Orwellian in its deviousness," he said. "To use language like the anti-defamation of a religion. It sounds like doublespeak worthy of Orwell's 1984 because of what it really does."

He said Muslim nations would use it as an endorsement of their attacks on Christians for statements as simple as their belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, which Muslims consider an affront.

Worse would be the "chilling" effect on language that the U.N. plan would create worldwide, he said.

"This would be a huge blessing to those who would silence dissidents in their countries, Islamic regimes," he said. "This stands as a monument to the gullibility of the masses in the United States and other places who don't see this for what it is."

The U.S. State Department also has found the proposal unpalatable.

"This resolution is incomplete inasmuch as it fails to address the situation of all religions," said a statement from Leonard Leo. "We believe that such inclusive language would have furthered the objective of promoting religious freedom. We also believe that any resolution on this topic must include mention of the need to change educational systems that promote hatred of other religions, as well as the problem of state-sponsored media that negatively targets any one religion."