So the question is, does religious tolerance mean the same thing in much of the Middle East as it does in Western countries? Just 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. 

In March 2008, the United Nations’ Human Rights Council passed a ridiculous 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 like 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 to the point of persecuting other faiths. But they were overridden 21 to 10.

Who’s on the UN Human Rights Council? It’s jam-packed with representatives from Communist and dictatorial nations with horrendous religious intolerance records, including 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.

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.

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 StatesCongress is supposed to vote on adapting something similar to November’s resolution. This is highly dangerous to the individual sovereignty of the U.S. Constitution.

Remember, there are those in our government who favor an international law system. In fact, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor repeated many times that the Supreme Court had begun looking more to the laws of other countries for their decisions. For example, Lawrence v Texas, the decision legalizing sodomy which was railroaded into the Supreme Court by gay rights groups, came from a decision in Ireland.

Attorneys at the European Center for Law & Justice (ECLJ), who are the special consultants to the European Union, warn that this legislature could replace existing laws against 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. Yeah – someone will be allowed to judge how you think, and take you to court for it.

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.

 “Islamophobia” – the New “Hate” Intolerance

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.

This conveniently diverts attention from the UN's own refusal to place sanctions on countries that finance and provide supplies for terrorists.

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? “It wasn’t in the best interest of diversity.”

Israeli President Shimon Peres naively welcomed King Abdullah’s initiative as “unprecedented” and impossible just a decade ago. Peres is barking up the wrong tree and shouldn’t hold his breath. It’s a fake.