It didn't attract much notice, but the General Assembly of the United Nations ended the year by passing a disgusting resolution protecting Islam from criticism of its human rights violations.
Lots of non-Muslims voted for it a sign that more and more corrupt Third World governments are identifying with the ideology of Islam, even if they don't accept its doctrines.
The resolution goes under the innocuous title "Combating defamation of religions" but the text singles out "Islam and Muslims in particular". It expresses "deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism".
The text of the resolution can be read here.
A commentator on Holy Smoke, one Patrick B., took issue with Damian’s view of the resolution, criticised his use of the word ‘terrorist’, attempted to argue that much islamist violence is politically rather than religiously motivated, and at the last interjected the red herring of the existence of violent groups that have no connection to Islam, as well as religiously-motivated violence involving the adherents of non-Muslim religions.
Melancholicus has re-read Damian’s piece, the text of the resolution itself and Patrick B.’s commentary, but in the end he must come down squarely against the commentator.
A fundamental error—into which both Patrick B. and the drafters of this resolution fall—is to regard all religions as essentially the same. Patrick B. points out that various other groups and the adherents of other religions also commit violent acts. Melancholicus is not impressed, since all this splitting of hairs and arguing over what precisely the meaning of the word ‘terrorist’ might be fails to confront the reality of a problem with which those who live in close proximity to Muslims—particularly Muslim majorities—have to deal with every day of their lives.
The fundamental problem is that in our time Mohammedanism is aggressively expansionist and a threat to the stability of all non-Muslim societies in a way in which other religions are not. To place all religions on the same level irrespective of their merits and demerits is to invite disaster. To even imagine that Mohammedanism is just a religion like any other is, in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, criminal folly. Add to this the brainwashed paralysis of western civilisation, in which those who make the decisions seem to be programmed to appease the Mohammedans on foot of ‘minority rights’, and the reader will have some idea why this resolution is bad news. These dhimmis actually seem to think that if they give the Mohammedan everything he asks for that he’ll politely go away and leave them alone. But the problem about paying Danegeld is that the Dane keeps coming back, and his price for keeping the peace rises steeply each time he does so. There is no better way to encourage an aggressor than by constant appeasement of his demands and capitulation before his threats. Appeasement of the Vikings didn’t work in 991, appeasement of the Nazis didn’t work in 1939, and appeasement of the Mohammedans won’t work now.
And in the meantime Melancholicus fears that this salient truth will not be recognised until it is too late.