U.N.'s Islam-protection plan revives

A death penalty for blasphemy against Islam announced for a Christian woman in Pakistan and a pending U.N. discussion about a Muslim plan to protect Islam with an anti-blasphemy plan may on the surface appear to have little to do with the average American.

But that would be dangerous as well as incorrect, according to the chief of a Christian ministry that works with persecuted Christians, almost all in Islamic or communist countries, around the globe.

The issue over blasphemy was addressed by Carl Moeller, chief of Open Doors USA, in an interview with WND because of the pending threat to the freedoms in America.

"This is a battle for our basic freedoms," he warned.

TRENDING: 'Hateful conduct': Congressman's tweet calling Rachel Levine a man gets flagged

The circumstances that are coming together at this point include the announcement in Pakistan of the death penalty by hanging for a Christian woman who was accused by her Muslim neighbors of "blaspheming" Islam.

Her case is on appeal, and on Monday there were reports that a request for a pardon had been submitted on her behalf.

In an interview with Compass Direct sources, Asia Noreen, also known as Asia Bibi, said her side of the dispute never has been heard even after multiple court hearings over two years.

"How can an innocent person be accused, have a case in court after a false [report], and then be given the death sentence, without even once taking into consideration what he or she has to say?" she asked.

The second circumstance is that the United Nations soon will be considering – again – a plan repeatedly proposed by Muslims that is called an "anti-blasphemy" effort. The original version was proposed to protect Islam from any criticism worldwide, but later expanded ostensibly to protect other religions as well.

The plan, if ultimately adopted, could put additional teeth in Muslim and communist nations' efforts to attack Christians within their borders. There could even be attempts to apply its regulations inside the U.S.

It has so alarmed Christians around the globe that more than 200,000 have joined in Open Doors' Free to Believe effort to oppose the U.N. plan.

Moeller said his organization will be bringing the campaign against the plan to Washington over the coming weeks, urging Congress to weigh in in opposition.

RELATED: Ex-Pak army chief: Intelligence bureau harbored Bin Laden

Moeller told WND that the issue, in basic terms, is political correctness run amok.

"This [U.N. idea] is Orwellian in its deviousness," he said. "To use language like the anti-defamation of a religion. It sounds like doublespeak worthy of Orwell's 1984 because of what it really does."

He said Muslim nations would use it as an endorsement of their attacks on Christians for statements as simple as their belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, which Muslims consider an affront.

Worse would be the "chilling" effect on language that the U.N. plan would create worldwide, he said.

"This would be a huge blessing to those who would silence dissidents in their countries, Islamic regimes," he said. "This stands as a monument to the gullibility of the masses in the United States and other places who don't see this for what it is."

He said the reality of blasphemy laws is that many times they are used by Muslims to settle – sometimes in a very permanent way – their personal grudges against Christians.

That is suspected in the case of Noreen the Pakistani Christian mother of five who was sentenced to death by hanging for blasphemy.

She was arrested in June 2009 when local Muslims accused her of denying that Muhammad was a prophet, according to Compass Direct News. The neighbors had been trying to force her to renounce Christianity, the reports said.

According to a spokesman for the national Commission for Justice and Peace in Pakistan, four out of five blasphemy charges are filed to settle personal scores.

It was back in 1999 that Pakistan officials first introduced to the U.N. a plan called the "Defamation of Islam." Many countries now are supporting the renamed "Defamation of Religions" resolution, mostly from the 57-member Organization of the Islamic States.

Open Doors documented, however, its impact would be exactly the opposite for Christians and other religious minorities.

"If the resolution passes again, it would give international legitimacy to Pakistan's blasphemy laws and restrictive legislation in other mostly Muslim countries," the organization's report said.

"It is incredibly sad and ironic that Pakistan has sentenced a Christian woman to death by hanging just days before a vote on the resolution at the United Nations that many countries are backing to purportedly protect religious freedom," Moeller said. "This sentencing should alert countries and individuals to the serious consequences of passing this resolution."

He said not only is the resolution deceptive and dangerous, it is ludicrous.

"This resolution proposes that a religion has rights. Religions, ideologies cannot have rights. The concept of human rights particularly is married to human beings, personhood. A religion cannot be defamed. It can be argued, challenged. But it has by definition no personality to be defamed."

But he said that's the direction Muslims want to move, and he forecasts that should Islam-protection standards become accepted, "what other obstacles are there to political speech being decried, 'You're blaspheming our political party. You are defaming our great leader. You are sentenced.'"

Reports note that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is opposed to the anti-defamation plan.

WND reported a year ago when the "Defamation of Islam" plan was addressed in the U.N. That vote had 80 votes in favor of the proposal, 61 against and 42 abstentions. The results showed support declining from the 86 yes votes from two years ago and the 108 yes votes from three years ago.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, said that drop in support was encouraging.

At the time, he said. "What this tells us is that our message is getting through. A growing number of nations around the world understand that this resolution is unacceptable – that it is harmful, not helpful, to preserving religious liberty and freedom. We will continue to work on this issue and to educate more nations about the dangers of this resolution and encourage them to vote against it."

Sekulow had criticized the "defamation" plan itself for inciting discrimination.

"The proclamation of the Gospel in Muslim countries has been called incitement of religious discrimination," he told WND at the time. "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects free speech."

The 57 member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have lobbied since 1999 for the "anti-defamation" plan, which is based on the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. The Cairo declaration states "that all rights are subject to Shariah law and makes Shariah law the only source of reference for human rights."

The U.S. State Department also has found the proposal unpalatable.

"This resolution is incomplete inasmuch as it fails to address the situation of all religions," said a statement from Leonard Leo. "We believe that such inclusive language would have furthered the objective of promoting religious freedom. We also believe that any resolution on this topic must include mention of the need to change educational systems that promote hatred of other religions, as well as the problem of state-sponsored media that negatively targets any one religion."