U.N. Human Rights Council Votes to Prevent Free Speech

It would seem now that Islam and the Human Rights Council is legitimately associated with the violations of free speech.

Muslim countries have been pressing for a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution calling on nations around the world to pass laws criminalizing the alleged “defamation” of religion – specifically Islam.

This week the Council passed the resolution.

A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven mostly Western nations opposed it and 13 countries abstained. "It is individuals who have rights and not religions," said Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier. Canada's criticism was echoed by European Union countries, all of which voted against the proposal.

"Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," the resolution said. It would seem now that Islam and the Human Rights Council is legitimately associated with the violations of free speech.

The United States did not vote on the resolution because it is not a member of the council. The Bush administration announced it was virtually giving up on the body and would participate in debates only if absolutely necessary because of the council's anti-Israel statements and its failure to act on abuses in Sudan and elsewhere.

The proposal by Pakistan had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies. The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."

Muslim nations have argued that religions, in particular Islam, must be shielded from criticism in the media and other areas of public life. They cited cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech.

But the "laws" or cannons of one religion should not be binding on people of other faiths, nor even upon those within the faith who disagree. In many cases, however, Muslim Shura, a form of social rules backed up by, in many cases, Sharia Law, forces other Muslims to adhere to the wishes of the community. http://www.alhewar.com/SadekShura.htm

India, which normally votes along with the council's majority of developing nations, abstained in protest at the fact that Islam was the only religion specifically named as deserving protection.

Efforts by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) have paid off in getting such a resolution passed – and we can count on the OIC to continue its global campaign to criminalize free speech that allegedly “defames” Islam.

Condensed and edited from
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRHXSIoJJdXQpG3kPrRO2LWMnWTAD975SKN01 and http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/learn/recent-news

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the ^sm of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism ^tm,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©,
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©, and

The Metaphysical Naturalist ©,

are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ^tm
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

Penises, LIttle Boys, and Internet Responsibility

KY brand of sexual lubricant already has TV ads that tout a creme for him and a creme for her which, when used together, does something "special" for each of them.

What kind of messages are we sending to our children when online and TV ads bearing these types of headlines are available at all hours for the kids to see?

Online, the headline "Dreaming of a Bigger Penis?" comes with a good looking young man lying on his bed, looking up at you. It does not have the addition of "Little Boy."

But you and I know the elementary boys will be giggling about it and showing it to each other. Middle and junior high school girls will be giggling about "penises" at the their lockers, while looking at their favorite boys' crotches trying to figure out which one's have the biggest. Some of those girls will find out, if they have not already. The boys will be laughing about penis size in the locker rooms and pointing at each other's dicks in the shower to prove they themselves don't need any "pills," and inadvertently shaming the innocent, closeted gay boys who get a hard-on, while bravely encouraging the straight boys to jerk it and prove they are men before emerging from the showers.

Creation of a web "dotsex" just for sex ads and porn is not against the first amendment or free speech; it is against the mulitculturist left [see article below] who want freedom of the press, even when the press is read by minors. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater? Certainly; and just as certainly this is not a case of that; but there is an audience for everything, and for everything there is a audience that should not be involved. It is why we make age-related laws about so many subjects, from movies to alcohol, from video games to driver's licenses, to which crimes can cause teens to be tried as adults.

We adults in civilization ought not be able to titillate the horny teens who already have their pants full of throbbing meat, wondering where to put it. They are not being taught not to put it anywhere, because statistics prove that abstinence programs alone are not as effective as mixed education where the proper use of condoms and safer sex are also taught.

Chastity rings are a cool thing, and I hope they work for those teens who want them to work. But 8 year olds who innocently surf the web and find these ads on their favorite general information pages don't need to be thinking about their penises--or anyone else's. If this continues, we will eventually see "clitoral stimulus pills" advertised. KY brand of sexual lubricant already has TV ads that tout a creme for him and a creme for her which, when used together, does something "special" for each of them.

Can you imagine what the boys in the locker rooms will do that with that information? A social society does not need to publicly discuss penises in general, not in front of our toddlers and teens.

Read this important report:

majicJack rips off consumers; leaves behind spywar...

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Rick Warren Whirlwind and "Prop 1"

Dec. 23, 2008 Sacramento, CA

Nation's Press Institute*

Work has already begun on what is being dubbed "Proposition 1" to be placed on the 2010 California ballot. Proponents are especially angry at Christian minister Rick Warren, founder and senior pastor of the evangelical megachurch, Saddleback Church, in Lake Forest, California, whose influence and political clout helped pass Proposition 8, which denied gays and lesbians the right to legal marriage.

Warren has been well publicized for what his critics say are offensive political views, and especially for the way he communicates them. "He routinely compares gay relationships to pedophilia, incest, and bigamy, and in the process dehumanizes a group of Americans. His website notes that gay people are not welcome to join his church."

Proponents of the so-called Proposition 1 are attempting to limit the free speech rights of licensed pastors, priests, rabbis, clerics and others during a six month span prior to any election. The Proposition would also limit the same free speech rights of anyone working in a paid or unpaid capacity for any tax-exempt religious organization.

In the United States, churchs receive their privileged tax-exempt position at the cost of outright political involvement. The Bush Administration, say critics, has not been enforcing this law. The Proposition as envisioned would close any organization defined as "tax-exempt for religious purposes" for a period of three months following convition under the new law, imprison the person(s) responsible for the campaigning for not more than six months, and levy a ten thousand dollar fine against the church for each violation.

The Rick Warren Whirlwind

Anything But Straight; Dec. 22, 2008

It could be that Barack Obama is simply smarter than the rest of us. The first black president of the Harvard Law Review has made a career of turning conventional wisdom on its head.

When people said that America was not ready for an African American president, he ran anyway - and won. He was counseled by countless talking heads to "go negative" against Hillary Clinton in the primaries and then John McCain - but he largely stuck to his strategy of staying positive - and won. In the middle of the campaign, Obama hit an iceberg named Rev. Jeremiah Wright, injecting race into a campaign that had desperately tried to shy away from this explosive issue. Obama discarded advice to spin the crisis and instead delivered a lecture on race relations that has gone down as one of the greatest speeches in the history of American politics - not to mention it saved his campaign. So, at this point in his rocket-propelled career, it is unwise to bet against the political instincts of Barack Obama.

Still, choosing pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration seemed like a gaffe that has served, if nothing else, as a distraction to Obama's central message of unifying America. This olive branch to evangelical Christians, who largely supported John McCain, felt more like poison ivy to gay and lesbian voters, who overwhelmingly cast ballots for Obama.

After all, Warren has a program to "help" homosexuals "pray away the gay" and played a prominent role in passing Proposition 8, which prohibits same-sex couples from marrying in California. He has even compared same-sex couples marrying to incest and child abuse.

Even if scientists find that homosexuality is genetic, Warren would still counsel gay people to fight their "sin," reducing our love to nothing more than perverted impulses. While Warren presumably gets his basic needs met by his wife, he expects gay people to abandon fulfilling relationships for dour lives of loneliness, severe depression and suicidal thoughts.

Obama can talk about unity all he wants, but what he is really doing is upholding the "Great Gay Exception. Obama would never have an anti-Semite on stage in the name of common ground. If so, why did he distance himself from fellow Chicagoan Louis Farrakhan during his campaign? Obama would also never dream of giving a platform to an open racist. But, Obama seems to think we should not object to him elevating Warren, who we find deeply offensive.

My hope is that Obama's plan is to offer heavy doses of symbolism and style to power hungry preachers, like Warren - while delivering substantive policy achievements to the gay and lesbian community. When gay and lesbian leaders reacted with understandable indignation, Obama's rebuttal was, people need to "learn to agree to disagree without being disagreeable."

This phrase, that many Evangelicals are nodding their heads to in agreement, is a rhetorical trap. If they agree to this principle over the Warren flap, they have essentially forfeited their moral high ground if they get "disagreeable" when Congress passes a law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The only flaw in this logic is that social conservatives rarely play by the same rules because they think they represent God. It is possible that Obama may have outsmarted himself by appealing to his sanctimonious enemies, who will never return the favor, while forfeiting support among his closest friends.

But, then again, maybe he really can buy goodwill by stroking the egos of narcissistic holy men. Rick Warren begins his best selling book The Purpose Driven Life with the refrain, "this is not about you." Of course not! It's always been about Rick Warren - whose camera-ready compassion is legendary.

If any good can come from this controversy, it is that many Americans now realize that Warren is masquerading as a moderate and posing as a pragmatist. Many Americans - who previously respected Warren - now view him as a poll-tested Pat Robertson who hides hate behind a Hawaiian shirt. He seemed arrogant and out of touch on NBC's Dateline when he told Ann Curry that he wasn't homophobic because he provided protesters outside his church with doughnuts. Gee, thanks, maybe next time you take away our rights we'll get ice cream from His holiness.

The alternative storyline is really unthinkable.

In this version, Obama cynically used gay and lesbian people for money, votes and volunteers. Then before he is sworn in, he swears off equality. This plot was certainly advanced when not a single openly gay person was appointed to a high-level cabinet position.

Within a year, we will learn whether Obama's decision to choose Warren was cagey, careless or cruel. If it is the former, we will soon view this cultural flashpoint as a flash in the pan. If it is the latter, it will cause an explosion of gay activism, giving many people who were previously apolitical, purpose driven lives - protesting Barack Obama.

© 2008 Wayne Besen. All rights reserved. Anything But Straight www.waynebesen.com

* Nation's Press Institute © The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC

"Proposition 1" is fictional for the purposes of illustrating how Federal law is not being enforced under the Bush Administration.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Faith; Science & Candidates; PC Fixes Anti-Gay Agenda; Free Speech

The Irreconcilability of Naturalism with Faith

by Curtis Edward Clark

Not one person on Earth needs formal training to make a judgment about the world he/she lives in, in the sense with which this article deals. We all make those kinds of "world-view" judgments everyday of our lives.

Theology, alike with physics, requires more formalized education with which to conclude such "world-views." As a matter of fact, physics accepts almost no "world-view" that is not its own, naturalistic and unassuming of a supernatural presence in the structure and origin of existence. Theology accepts almost no "world-view" that does not assume a creator’s existence; and theology also assumes the intelligibility of the universe solely on the basis of that creator’s existence.

Without the influence of religion, science seeks the intelligibility, the cosmos-from-chaos, through individual thinking and peer review; yet one man may uniquely stand against all his fellows in science and be correct yet shunned, until one day the world discovers he was correct, in which case the “Copernican effect” http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/observations/jupiter_satellites.html alters forever the cosmology of the civilization which accepts the logic, i.e., the line of reasoning; or the scientist stands alone until the world beginning with his peers disproves his theories convincingly.

Theology (proper) seeks to make cosmos-from chaos only from theories of the "faith-based" humanities, as opposed to physically or mathematically provable scientific concepts. Where no explanation of the cosmos results from such faith-based theorizing, religion joins reason to faith, "insofar as is possible" to do so, [Boethius] to create a dogma, a papal bull, or some other form of edict which is taken as policy and as gospel truth, until a proper theological explanation can be rendered. All theological explanations presume the existence of a creator.

The Copernican effect shook the foundations of the Roman Church. Dogma and papal edicts had to be radically changed because of the effect this naturalistic scientific idea had on doctrine. Scientific naturalism is epistemic and the logical metaphysical concomitant for most or many scientists is metaphysical naturalism, which is defined as denial of the existence of the supernatural, and thus of a creator.

Naturalism "holds that the universe requires no supernatural cause and government, but is self-existent, self-explanatory, self-operating, and self-directing" through the cause-and-effect nature of the elements on the Periodic Table interracting with each other. No such effect as "gravity", for example, can exist without being "caused" by such elements interacting as they will by their own scientifically defined nature upon the same defined nature of other elements.

But epistemic naturalistic science does not presume or deny the existence of God. The epistemology of it naturally leads to the search for demonstrable proof, either empirical or mathematical. In the scientist's personal life, God may be a fact, and in fact for some scientists it is fact. But for purposes of peer review using proper standards of math or of physics, any theory or other demonstrable proof of science must be naturalistic in its epistemic foundations. Continued at Irreconciled Naturalism, Faith, and Populist Education

Poll: Americans are much more likely to vote for a candidate that will tackle science issues

"Science Debate 2008"

"In November, 2007, a small group of six citizens - two screenwriters, a physicist, a marine biologist, a philosopher and a science journalist - began working to restore science and innovation to America’s political dialogue. They called themselves Science Debate 2008, and they called for a presidential debate on science. The call tapped a wellspring of concern over the state of American science.
Within weeks, more than 38,000 scientists, engineers, and other concerned Americans signed on, including nearly every major American science organization, dozens of Nobel laureates, elected officials and business leaders, and the presidents of over 100 major American universities. See who here. Among other things, these signers submitted over 3,400 questions they want the candidates for President to answer about science and the future of America.
Beginning with these 3,400 questions, Science Debate 2008 worked with Scientists and Engineers for America, the AAAS, the National Academies, the Council on Competitiveness, and the other organizations listed to craft the top 14 questions the candidates should answer. These questions are broad enough to allow for wide variations in response, but they are specific enough to help guide the discussion toward many of the largest and most important unresolved challenges currently facing the United States."

For compete questions and answers from both candidates, see The Questions and Answers--A Side by Side Comparison

Court Clears Minister Who Wed Lesbian Couple
PCUSA OKs Changes to Faith Document, Removal of Gay Condemnation

"Three years after conducting a wedding ceremony for a lesbian couple, the Rev. Janet Edwards was acquitted Thursday on charges of violating Scripture and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)'s constitution.

"A 2000 decision by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, the denomination's highest court, held that clergy could conduct services blessing same-sex couples but could not present them as marriages and that the services should not resemble weddings.

"Although the charges against Edwards contended she "knowingly and willfully" performed a ceremony that was "contrary" to the PC(USA) constitution, Pollock of the regional PJC said the prosecution offered no evidence that Edwards violated Scripture when it listed eight biblical passages defied."

Can anyone answer this question: "Why would a religious order have a Judicial Commission to decide whether secular laws were broken?" If secular laws are broken, is it not the business of the secular admisistrators of law to bring action?

"The Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) of the Pittsburgh Presbytery ruled unanimously 9-0 to clear the minister on the grounds that she could not have performed the ceremony since the church and state define marriage as between a man and a woman."

It was not just the Presbyterian Church's Constitution the Commission considered, but also the definition of marriage as presented by the state. Since the state does not define marriage as anything but between a man and a woman, the Rev. Edwards "could not have performed the ceremony." for continuation see Presbyterians Work on Removing Anti-Gay Agenda

The Looming Crisis over Free Speech

In a lecture today, October 6, 2008, "Dr. Eric Daniels examines the state of free speech in America and finds that it is under serious threat. From campus speech codes to anti-discrimination and harassment law, fromcampaign finance to commercial speech, Americans today enjoy less andless freedom in communicating their ideas. Today's colleges and universities have become a hotbed of censorship, producing generations of Americans who have accepted suppression of speech as the norm. Daniels argues that the emerging crisis is a result of the lack of aproper understanding of individual rights, especially property rights. Only by understanding the proper basis of rights can we act to secureour freedom of speech and to protect the rights that give rise to it. Where: 101 Morgan Hall, University of California, Berkeley. For more information on this lecture, please e-mail media@aynrand.org."

Note: I will be the featured speaker at the Center For Inquiry (CFI) meeting, October 16, 2008, in Portage, Michigan. The topic is "Atheism as a 'Religion' Protected by Courts According to the Establishment Clause" CEC

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of the
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM, The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

Readers' Questions;"Libel Tourists"; Mark-to-Market

Readers Question, and I Answer

Q. Is law a basic code of ethics that all people are forced to live by? And is a man a bad person if his ethical code is not contingent with the law?

A. People break the law all the time and get away with it. Not because they are not caught, but because there are times when we are forced to disobey the law and obey the higher authority of our conscience. That is presuming our conscience is of a higher standard than even the law.

For example, a felon breaks the law by owning a gun, but then in his home he kills a mass murderer in the middle of the night who broke in. He must face the consequences of owning that gun, but if the prosecutor or the jury decide that this particular felon has owned the gun for 10 years and never fired it, they might find it justified and merely give him a slap on the wrist. Otherwise, if he's fired it before, he could go back to prison. Ethics are often accepted in law as being better than the law--if and when there is justification for it.

Q. What is your ideology of excellence? MORE

Islamo-fascists Use British Courts to Stop American Free Speech; Congress Fights Back

Condensed from www.washingtontimes.com/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jul/20/battling-censorship/

And from Act! For America

http://www.actforamerica.org/

One of the most potent weapons that global jihadists have to advance their cause is one of the least-remarked: censorship.

Billionaire Saudi financier Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz, sued Rachel Ehrenfeld, founder and director of the American Center for Democracy, for libel: in her book, "Funding Evil," she wrote that he was involved in funding Hamas and al Qaeda.

bin Mahfouz denied that he had knowingly given any money to either. Taking advantage of British libel laws that place the burden of proof on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, Mr. bin Mahfouz sued not in the United States, where Miss Ehrenfeld lives and published her book, but in Britain, where neither he nor Miss Ehrenfeld live and where his entire case depended upon a handful of copies sold in that country mostly through special orders from Amazon.com, and the appearance of one chapter of the book on the Internet, where it may have been read by British readers.

Britain's libel laws have given rise to the phenomenon of wealthy "libel tourists," who sue there on the slimmest British connection in order to ensure a favorable ruling.

A shattering moment in America's fall from power

"There has been a good deal of talk in recent weeks about imminent economic armageddon. In fact, this is far from being the end of capitalism. The frantic scrambling that is going on in Washington marks the passing of only one type of capitalism - the peculiar and highly unstable variety that has existed in America over the last 20 years. This experiment in financial laissez-faire has imploded."

So wrote the author of the blog "Circle of 13," http://circleof13.blogspot.com/2008/10/shattering-moment-in-americas-fall-from.html But it is not entirely true. It may have laissez faire in the sense that no one was interfering in what Wall Street was doing; but that would be extremely misleading. Washington set the rules first, then, perhaps, did not interfere in the meltdown that Washington itself set in motion.

"U.S. Rep. Candice Miller is calling for the elimination or suspension of some current accounting practices as a way to improve the situation on Wall Street.

"One of those, she said, is the elimination or suspension of so-called mark-to-market accounting practices in relation to mortgage-backed securities. Mark-to-market accounting rules require assets to be valued at their current market value on a company’s books – and many believe mortgage-backed securities’ values have actually fallen below their inherent worth." freep.com http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080930/BUSINESS07/80930061 "Buried within the furore that has gripped Wall Street and other markets around the world, a request was submitted to suspend the practice of mark-to-market ..." wrote Business Day. http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/companies.aspx?ID=BD4A854855

"Under the 'mark-to-market' rules banks value profits based on an estimation of future income based on a calculation of what would be raised if all loans and mortgages were sold in the market at the best possible price. "A number of politician and economists believe this practice has been a key factor in the decimation of the banking system because it does not reflect the true value of the assets in turbulent market conditions." citywire http://www.citywire.co.uk/professional/-/features/sector-watch/content.aspx?ID=316017 MORE

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of the
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM
are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®