Religion and human rights

The limits of freedom and faith


See article

Readers' comments



World is divided in various classification. Actually we are behaving like a supernova (a stage in life of a star)Shrinking at its core and expanding on its surface. So likewise, we the people behaving like this. Now! Is this a sign of our demise like something in prophesies. We are finding reasons for fighting whether they are on the name of religion,materialistic things. But one thing i am sure about that we humans are not fighting only for heavenly bodies or spiritual things, there are always some materialistic cause or selfish reasons behind this all propaganda.


All religions should be open to scrutiny, debate and discussion. If it's strong enough it will survive. Anything less shows insecurity in their own belief. Besides assuming that God exists, he/ she would be able to handle the criticism and act appropriately.

Individuals have the freedom of expression and should be allowed to debate religion in the 21st century without being controlled.

Furthermore, UN should protect individuals right to religious freedom while allowing free discussions. One groups difficulties in accepting that should not have to affect the whole world.


Why are these religious bigots afraid of being questioned, or critised?

Why are they afraid of questioning the Virgin birth, for what it was not?
Or the atrocities committed by another prophet on his way to spreading his religion ?
The only religions that espouse the banning of all criticism are the ones that proselytize.

But at the same time has Richard Dawkins started just another religion ?


Religion should be a personal thing. Government should be by general consent. These two will never meet.

Many think "freedom of religion" too often boils down to child abuse. Youngsters are best taught that these n gods and these n forms of worship exist, and a choice of any or none can be made.


Pace Richard Dawkins, people who believe in invisible friends are not the sort one should permit to make policy of any kind. That they should be permitted to intimidate and silence the productions of more adequate minds is truly an abomination.

Rolf Viktor

The state of Pakistan was founded on the faith of its Islamic majority and the ego of its founder Mr. Jinnah. By persecuting religious minorities it reminds itself of its founding principles.

How can a strong faith of the overwhelming majority feel threatened by the relatively poor and outnumbered Christian minority?

I feel greatly concerned by the weakness of the Christian and Catholic Church in Europe. It is creating a vacuum which Islam (with oil money) is working hard to fill. A vacuum is unnatural. Something has to fill it.


-atheists, could you please explain(logically) what 'everything' and 'forever' mean?
-the only true atheists are those locked up in mental institutions.


free will and freedom of expression for everyone, until it does not cause physical, financial or social harm to others, should be the basic principle used whenever creating laws for religion.

Paul Deacon from Italy

Can we be logical?

A Catholic is taught to believe that all Muslims shall burn in Hell because of their faith. A Muslim sees all Christians bound for the same destination on similar grounds. How can you defame a religion more than by saying that its believers are damned by God?

Free speech is free speech and is blessed by God.



The real logical flaw is that the UN's Human Rights Council has members representing regimes that don't give a rat's behind about human rights. These regimes care about maintaining their own power over their people, usually by oppression and the use of force. No wonder they are busy trying to promote legislation that would help them keep their grip on the ruler's whip, while continuing to promote their fundamentalist agenda overseas.


This is bringing the world back to the pre-Enlightenment Age.

If a scientist publishes a paper that shows that the wafer used in the Catholic Holy Communion never developed the structure or histology of a piece of human flesh, and that it's molecular structure has remained that of a piece of wafer. Could he be sued for "blasphemy"?

If a lawyer points out that marrying a man marrying a girl of 9 is considered to be a pedophile, and a certain Holy Man has done just that. Is that blasphemy?

If God is omnipotent, does He need human law to protect Him.

That a religion, dedicated to the worshiping of an omnipotent God requires human law to protect it, a "protect religion law" is an oxymoron.


"But to insult prophets and religions is certainly not freedom of speech as it really hurts many followers."

Weasel words. Whom does it hurt, and in what way? You're talking about offense, not real harm, so don't pretend otherwise. Adults should be able to deal with being offended.

"Therefore legislation in this respect is a good idea to maintain social peace."

No, people should learn to control themselves and not go out rioting because someone offended them.


I believe that every person should be allowed to make suggestions regarding modernization of any religion. This is not defamation.




The key question here is, how can we protect the religious liberties of all people everywhere? (This is what "universal rights" are all about.) Anti-defamation laws are not the answer, because many Muslim countries use these laws to bring enormous pressure to bear against Christians and other religious minorities. The same is true in India, where Hindis would surely use anti-defamation laws against Christians, Muslims, and other religious minorities within India. Rather, constitutional guarantees that are enshrined in national constitutions and backed by a widespread respect for religious liberties is a much better road towards religious liberty for all.


All religion can live peacefully but some bigots forcefully claim that their religion is superior than other religion than tension arise. Christan Jew and Muslim are constantly fighting with other, they are the main culprit making trouble in world. Let every religion flourish their own way.

Curate's Egg


Perhaps you have not had the privilege of living in a Muslim country, and then living in a largely Christian country with a secular government, thus being able to compare which belief is more compatible with toleration of others' beliefs. For those who did, the answer is immediately clear - even if there are aberrations.

As for Northern Ireland, the conflict in the region has a myriad of social and economic causes that belittles the role of faith in it to a mere figurehead. In fact, such is the case with most conflicts.


Curate's Egg, you're misguided if you think that Christianity - or any religion - is better than any other. Take a look at Northern Ireland if you want to see how peaceful Christians can be, and that's in a 'freely competitive' democracy.

Anyone claiming that their faith - and what they do in the name of their faith - cannot be criticised or even debated by those with a different faith (or no faith), is claiming a power over others. In individual cases this can be the power of a priest over an altar boy (everyone knows what that leads to), where the priest will be protected by his seniors whatever he does. On a worldwide scale is leads to holy genocides and righteous war, from the crusades to jihads.

Personal beliefs are one thing; if you keep them to yourself, you can believe in whatever you want. But actions should be judged without prejudice, which is to say, openly without special protection.


Fredkzk wrote:
Mar 31st 2010 7:50 GMT

The biggest threat of the world and its human rights is actually RELIGION.


Myopic view of history. Biggest killers and tyrants of mankind in modern history came from political ideologies and ethnic nationalism.

Curate's Egg

I am generally not an Islam basher, but Muslim states regularly fail to meet my hopes for them.

If Buddhism, Christianity, and other religions - as well as other beliefs and ideologies - can live in a freely competitive world, so can Islam.



Products and events



