Following up my post on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I just feel I need to add something. There is a (deliberate?) blurry line between two vastly different concepts: intolerance based on inherent properties and criticism of beliefs or ideas.

Intolerance and discrimination should not be allowed when they are based on an inherent property of a human being. For example, skin colour, ethnicity, height, potential disabilities, are properties of humans, not choices, and as such they cannot be changed. They should not be the target or justification for intolerance or discrimination of any kind. We should all stand up against this type of discrimination.

On the other hand, religion is not a property. It is a belief, an idea, a choice, and thus it should be open to criticism just like any other idea and opinion in a free society. To pass a regulation that prevents the “defamation of religion” -such a vague term anyway, is an unfortunate and misdirected act that should have absolutely no place in the United Nations directives.

One might get annoyed when someone criticizes or makes fun of his ideas/beliefs. Well, tough! Defend your ideas properly; accept that satire and comedy are parts of our society and the most sacred of our rights (free-speech); and get over it!

How difficult is for this not-so-subtle difference to grasp?

Staying on this subject: Jon Stewart interviewed Mike Huckabee (remember him?) on The Daily Show, attacking him on his ultra-conservative (and fuelled solely by his religious views) opinion on homosexual marriage, producing some memorable quotes:

It’s a travesty that people have forced someone who is gay to have to make their case that they deserve the same basic rights as someone else.

and my favorite:

I’ll tell you this: Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality. And the protections that we have for religion? We protect religion — and talk about a lifestyle choice — that is absolutely a choice. Gay people don’t choose to be gay. At what age did you choose not to be gay?

My opinion: civil union rights should be granted to any kind of couples -heterosexual, homosexual, something else (?). Marriages in religious contexts are a whole other thing though: if the church (whichever) wants to “preserve” marriage as a union of a male and a female, then so be it. But the concept of a civil union does not fall under the “jurisdiction” of the church; is not the same thing as a marriage in the sense Huckabee keeps spitting out; and should not be influenced by religious doctrine.