UN should protect people, not institutions

Here’s an interesting article from The Economist that deals with the UN’s resolution to make defamation of religion illegal. We’re all aware of how toothless the UN really is, but it doesn’t change the fact this resolution attempts to protect religious institutions instead of individuals.

Think of it this way; when the UN was created shortly after the end of the Second World War, world governments realized powerful institutions were at the root of the problem, so the focus was placed on individual liberties and protections. It was understood that by themselves, institutions can easily become corrupt, evil, and destructive, but so long as individuals were able to pursue their own interests without fear of persecution, it would at least indicate they were indeed free. A resolution that seeks to protect a religious institution from defamation is really trying to protect it from criticism, and nothing more. Imagine the same protection was afforded to fascism, communism, or any other institution for that matter? We wouldn’t stand for it, simply because we recognize the danger in protecting institutions rather than individuals.

Let’s stop beating around the bush and recognize precisely what this resolution is intended to do. Islam is tired of being criticized, and it wants all of us to play nice. Sorry, no can do. The fact of the matter is I consider this religion to be barbaric, cruel, destructive, and dangerous. I recognize individuals within Islam can be kind, loving, and caring; but as a whole, it is a religion that remains incompatible with our modern values. With this resolution, Islamic countries seek to make their position immune to outside criticism. So long as you torture and kill people in the name of God, I will continue to criticize your beliefs, regardless of how many stupid UN resolutions they try to pass.

Comments (1)

  • avatar


    Man. sometimes I feel like we might be moving on and getting somewhere, and other days I feel like I might find myself in a future where I could end up in court or worse, for the sake of honest, open, critical inquiry.

    If the inquiry points in my direction, I really don’t mind, so why does it not work the other way? Why, of all things, should I respect that for others when I don’t expect it for myself? Why can’t we all get our shorts on, feel the wind on our backs, and play on a level playing field? I’ll stick to the rules, promise, as long as you do too.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top