The last Inquisitors: 1999 US report on "religious tolerance in world"
The last Inquisitors
The following complementary general notes deal with the Report presented on
9/9/99 at 9pm, [are they superstitious people there?]
by the US Congress, about the situation of religions in most world countries.
After ample reading of most critics adressed by USA to many countries, one could think that the secondary intention could be to make some call - some seduction operation - to all these groupuscules, groups or multinational cults - to get complaining by Uncle Sam, so as he'd act against those targeted countries: perhaps is it there some new method to make new friends there. But, USA congressmen and senators and president, do remind this: such groups are mostly ready to takeover you, or to betray everyone as soon as they think their interests could be dumped. They'll never support their engagements against politics: just one moment, observe Iranian religious/political mish-mash.
I'd not say that such a report is completely vain or unuseful, as information can be really useful to defend human rights and make people more aware, but giving wrong and biased public observations in many cases is perhaps more dangerous than remaining silent.
Who can say by instance what could be iranian or irakian reactions when pointed out publicly by their USA enemies? My guess is that they could get revenge acts, on the exact points pointed out. How many new victims of religious intolerance will create this relatively biased, intolerant and inexact report?
Subtitles are those from the report. Original piece in many files hre:
Appendix A: International Religious Freedom Conventions
(List of conventions and countries having signed them)
2/ Here we discover the list of International Conventions about Human Rights, signed or unsigned by countries.
USA did not speak of the International Convention about Children's Rights .
Neither the one about anti-personal mines; did they fear that we could remind them having not signed those?
They have, through their CSCE, some agreements (exposed at length in their report) with OSCE and European Union. Why did not sdigned up either the European Convention about Human Rights, then?
3/ Here, we could read:
"Officers also consulted with experts on issues of religious discrimination and persecution, religious leaders from all faiths, and experts on legal matters. The guiding principle was to ensure that all relevant information was assessed as objectively, thoroughly, and fairly as possible. "
From the first moment one reads the one report about France (I'm not competent to speak of other countries legislation and legal or religious organization), one can find that US congress did not understand some of the very basic principles of quite simple french laws about associations and various other legal speak. They have given a number of erroneous explanations (if I can, I'll translate the critic of their report about France, where this is detailed). This shows a very faulty methodology: would they not accuse the french deputies of faulty methodology too, perhaps could we forget theirs.
"The Report also will serve as a basis for the U.S. Government's cooperation with private groups to promote the observance of the internationally recognized right to religious freedom. "
Should we understand here that, not yet satisfied to have dealt some secret agreements detaxing some commercial - if not worse - cults, the US government would like to go further and give them subsides if "they promote the observance of internationnaly recognized rights to religious freedom"?
But these same exact groups are often those promoting the worse intolerance about others. Just an example: how could the US convicted and jailed felon Sun Yung Moon, who preached he's the actual Christ, be of any tolerance against any other churches or faked religions?
5/ Into that part of the report, other negative judgements of value are done by US govt against democratical countries which are precisely refusing the takeover of dangerous groups onto democracy; indeed, one can observe here the inversed default reproached by USA to France and Belgium, that is, USA speak of dangerous cults but they amalgamate them to more benign movements, while Europe established lists of groups with sectarian/cultic tendancies, some of them being evidently more scrutinized -or attacked - than others by officials, as they are known being more dangerous.
But how do live the american people, whose ancient context allows anybody to possess deadly weapons? - moreover, one of the countries keeping on to feed religion wars through weapons selling to minorities - or majorities, or governemental and non-governmental entities, is that country entitled to speak of what others should or should'nt do?
Going further, USA think apparently inacceptable that countries could have any monitoring of religious groups.
Later, one can read that the Chinese Government is stigmatized, as "In China government intolerance of unregistered religious activity has led in some areas to persecution of persons on the basis of their religious practice, through harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or "reform through labor" camps... ". But what does not say the report, is that documented evidences show that the US based scientology group has private gulags, yes, those are private "reform through labor and indoctrination camps", where people can be sent for undetermined durations - and without due process of any form of justice but biased scientology one.
7/ Later: "The Government of Kazakhstan requires religious organizations to register in order to receive legal status." - where is the problem here? Why USA do have struggled for decades against the criminal cult of scientology, up to the Supreme Court of United States, winning each time against the cult, before agreeing, against any logic, to tax exemption of that group? That's also "registering", and in extremely hard and doubtful methods, no?
8/ Then, using once again the really practical apologist argument of "lists of cults" established by France or Belgium, US deputies omit then to indicate that NO such group has ever admitted publicly being a "cult" or "sect"; I must though remind here that I've personaly signed - was forced to -, in 1981, as the then president of the Lyon Scientology association, a "contract" between the organization of Lyon and the upper worldwide direction of the cult, where the directors were calling scientology "a sect", and Hubbard's works "sectarian writings". But that was no public document.
U.S. ACTIONS TO PROMOTE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ABROAD
9/ Read this "The 1998 International Religious Freedom Act mandates presidential action in cases of particularly severe violations of religious freedom, although it grants considerable flexibility in deciding on what action to take." Could we understand that the decisions will essentially be based onto US economics and politics? Why flaming the Kosovo war, or by Saddam Hussein, but not by Indonesia (where there is mass manslaughters in Oriental Timor now), or by Talibans, or Northern Ireland - people to whom weapons are sold, sometimes to both camps?
Retour sous index correspondant à ce type de texte : apologistes et politique internationale