The United Nations and 'Religious Tolerance' - is the UN's Idea the Same as America's?

In mid-November 2008 at a two day United Nations conference in New York sponsored by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the Arab nations led a plea for religious tolerance.

Among the representatives from 80 countries, many were skeptical of Abdullah's sponsorship. According to the U.S. Dept. of State International Freedom of Religion Report 2008, Sunni Islam is the official religion of Saudi Arabia with 10% being Shi'a Muslims. King Abdullah is reported to sanction and worship in the ultra-orthodox Wahhabi branch of Islam. Any other form of public worship, open conversation or conversion to other faiths can face possible discrimination or punishment.

So the question is, does 'religious tolerance' mean the same thing in much of the Middle East as it does in Western countries? Days before the conference, the Human Rights Watch, an independent, non-religious organization, posted an advisory for world leaders to ask Saudi Arabia's Abdullah to end religious discrimination in his own country.

Since the horrific events of 9/11/01 at the hands of terrorists who claimed to be carrying out the tenets of Islam, there's been an increase in anti-Semitism (anti-Jewish), anti-Christian and anti-Muslim sentiments, all under the premise that "organized religion" causes most of the world's problems. But then, in early 2008 came the controversial Dutch cartoon caricatures of Islamic symbols and nations, which raised the ire of Arab leaders.

In March 2008, the United Nations' Human Rights Council passed a resolution called "Combating Defamation of Religions", proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conferences (OIC). The document asks that national legisla­tures around the world pass the same resolutions. Representatives from Canada and the European Union including France, Germany and Great Britain voted against it, stating that it focused mainly on protecting Islam; they feared to the point of persecuting other faiths. But they were overridden 21 to 10.

Several facts are important to note: (1) Ironically, the UN Human Rights Council (renamed from Commission on Human Rights in 2006) includes representatives from many Communist and dictatorial nations - some of which have the worst human rights and religious rights records in the world. These include Cuba, China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia; also the Congo and Sudan whose governments have not been able to stop recent genocide atrocities in their own countries.

(2) The United States does not have a seat on the United Nations' Human Rights Council. In March 2007, the State Department concluded that the Council had not been accomplishing the goals it was charged with. So the U.S. was not considering a seat.

(3) The 57 nations within the Organization of the Islamic Conference have adopted the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which states that all rights are subject to Sharia law (Islam's legal system), and makes Sharia law the only reference for human rights.

The United States Congress is supposed to vote on adapting something similar to November's resolution. This can be highly dangerous to the individual sovereignty of the U.S. Constitution. And there are those in our government who favor an international law system. In fact, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has stated that the Supreme Court had begun looking more to the laws of other countries for their decisions.

Attorneys at the European Center for Law & Justice (ECLJ), who are special consultants to the European Union, warn that the proposed legislature could replace existing laws against the act of inciting violence toward a religious person with laws forbidding verbal criticism or disagreement; i.e., an international court suit could be brought on the perception that a speaker's verbal, non-violent speech - even with willing listeners - is discriminatory.

The ECLJ further warns that certain articles in the OIC's document may be used to forbid speech only against Islam while continuing to sanction or turn a blind eye to violence against other faiths. Sharing a different faith, even with someone who is willing to listen could become an international crime.

(Before readers post comments saying Christians are always forcing their faith, sharing any faith should never be forced. The listener should always be willing, with the subject opened in non-obstructive ways.)

The United Nations announced in 2007 that their second World Conference on Racism (to be held in 2009) would focus on "Islamophobia", implying that all Westerners who fear Middle East-based terrorism are fearful and hateful of all Muslims. As this word "Islamophobia" is popularized by PC gurus, it may no longer be politically correct to denounce radical Islamic terrorism.

Incidents like this are already occurring: In December 2007, students at the University of Florida, Tampa Campus were censored by school authorities from handing out flyers advertising a movie which warned about the dangers of radical Islam...not the Islamic faith, but the dangers of radical Islamic terrorism. The reason given for the censorship of their free speech was that "it wasn't in the best interest of diversity". This conveniently diverts attention from the UN's own refusal to place sanctions on countries that finance and provide supplies for terrorists.

President-elect Barack Obama plans to deepen the United States' relationship with the UN. His advisors and consultants must be aware and inform him of these situations.

Israeli President Shimon Peres welcomed King Abdullah's initiative as "unprecedented" and impossible just a decade ago. But there is a biblical perspective in both the Old and New Testament that there will never be a successful man-created peace between the Arab nations, Israel and her supporters due to the two half-brothers, Isaac and Ishmael (Abraham's sons). From them, both the Israeli nation and Arab nations were founded. The only lasting peace will be through the Messiah awaited by both Christians and Jews.

If interested in this biblical perspective, watch for Associated Content Producer Mike Perry's upcoming article, "The Blessing and the Covenant - A Scriptural Perspective on the Violence against Israel and Her Allies by Radical Islam".

Sources:

U.S. Dept. of State International Freedom of Religion Report on Saudi Arabia: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108492.htm.

Representative Nations of the Human Rights Commission: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm

Students censored at UF campus: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/dec/20/na-pc-dangers-extend-far-beyond-ufs-doors/news-opinion-commentary/

Capitol Hill UN Resolution update Dec 2, 2008:

"Religious Speech Updated", Julia Duin, http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/17/religious-speech-debated/.

European Union against March 2008 UN resolution: "Contentious Islamic Religious Resolution Passed In The U.N.", Rohan Parker,http://www.interfaith.org/2008/03/28/contentious-islamic-religious-resolution-passed-in-the-un/.

European Center for Law & Justice analysis: http://www.eclj.org/pressreleases/08-1009-ECLJ_Participates_UN.html.

Abdullah at Nov. UN Conference:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24644850-23109,00.html;

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/category?blogid=15&cat=2076;

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/13/un-conference-rejects-religious-terrorism-1/.

UN Meeting on Islamophobia: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=39125.

Human Rights Watch request for Saudi Arabia to end discrimination: http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/saudi-arabia.

Justice O'Connor looking to international law, quoted from Atlanta Journal Constitution at: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35367.