Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Fans of irony will get a good laugh out of this headline from the International Herald Tribune:
Saudi Arabia to lead UN talks on religious tolerance
Unfortunately, it isn't just the headline that is ironic, it's the reality of this ridiculous conference itself.
Saudi Arabia, which deploys a special police force to ensure that only one narrow sect of Islam predominates in the kingdom, is sponsoring a discussion at the United Nations on religious tolerance starting Wednesday.More than a dozen world leaders are expected to attend, including President George W. Bush, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain and the Saudi monarch, King Abdullah, making a rare appearance at the UN headquarters.
Officially, the United Nations does not sponsor religious discussions, so the two-day session of the General Assembly is being billed as a meeting on the "Culture of Peace," and most of those attending are government rather than religious figures.
But human rights defenders are crying foul that Saudi Arabia is being given the platform of the United Nations to promote religious tolerance abroad while it actively combats anything similar at home.
"It's like apartheid South Africa having a conference at the UN on racial harmony," said Ali Al-Ahmed, a Shiite Muslim dissident from Saudi Arabia based in Washington.
Quite right. King Abdullah should be told to go screw himself on this.
Politics
Comments
But Ed, think of the oil...I mean the children, think of the children.
Posted by: Dave S. | November 14, 2008 10:04 AM
I'm as big a fan of irony as the next guy, but it is possible to go too far...
Posted by: Dunc | November 14, 2008 10:06 AM
The Saudis' dubious interfaith agenda at the UN
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | November 14, 2008 10:11 AM
From the same article Herod linked:
I consider the freedom of speech and of belief to be sacred. Therefore I'm going to say "Fuck your blasphemy laws, stick your religious tyranny where the sun doesn't shine." and any king, ayatollah, or mullah who would try to silence me is acting against the very principle he seeks to establish.
Posted by: DaveL | November 14, 2008 10:23 AM
It is only ironic if they are trying to DECREASE Religious Intolerance
Posted by: rpsms | November 14, 2008 10:29 AM
It is one of those, "do I cry or LMAO?" moments....
Posted by: Blue Gal | November 14, 2008 10:43 AM
If there were no other reason to put serious effort into renewable energy and hydrogen fuel cells, then pissing off King Adbulluh of Saudi Arabia would be reason enough.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 14, 2008 10:53 AM
Are reforms in the Kingdom coming fast enough? No. But they are coming: there are brave people living there who are standing up to the rabidity of the country's strict interpretation of Islam. Women are daring to drive, risking imprisonment (no, they won't get stoned for it, or have their heads chopped off). Dissidents are staying in the country and speaking out, despite harsh punishment. Media outlets are featuring more diverse opinions and criticising local intolerance. King Abdullah cannot be unaware of his people's desire for more freedom and if he is a shrewd leader, he will take heed. I have been heartened by his seemingly more conciliatory statements of recent.
Over the 11 years my parents taught there and over which I visited, I saw real change. It may sound ridiculous to say that men wearing shorts is a sign of progress, especially given all the real problems, but incremental change sometimes opens up opportunity for massive reform. I also saw what inroads Western popular culture was making and while I hate the crass consumerism, it serves as an attractive incentive for the young people to broaden their experience. Also, the understanding that comes between peoples once they are part of a mixed community brings changes in attitude towards outsiders: this was true of both the Saudis and the expats who worked and lived together.
Doesn't mean I wouldn't want to see the infamous infidel's exit ramp get blown up. Doesn't change that the majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi. Doesn't deal with the poor treatment of foreign workers. Doesn't excuse the "separate but equal" segregation of sexes in restaurants and public places (women can't watch live male sporting events!). And yes, this is still the land where rape victims get punished for their "indecency" and daring to speak out against injustice (do NOT get me started on that!).
Cynicism and wariness is warranted: Saudi Arabia is fundamentally a fundamentalist society with pervasive, entrenched extremist views. But if mistrust is necessary in our approach to this country, so is cautious hope and support of reform - both official and public - no matter how small we here think it is. Call me naive, but we should welcome that.
Posted by: marnk | November 14, 2008 11:04 AM
Let's see now....
So, first: it's "religious intolerance" to criticize the, ah, true and correct religion in any way, including trying to sway true believers by basely peddling your own false creed (or lack thereof). How dare you.
So naturally, suppressing that sort of behavior is simply doing good, right? You don't support tolerating intolerance, do you?
And sure, sometimes good people get a little fired up about all of the terrible blasphemy that goes on, but they can't be blamed, really; you bring it on yourselves... and if someone gets hurt, don't say we didn't warn you.
Once you understand that we have the absolute truth and indisputable knowledge of right & wrong, the rest just kind of carries along logically from there. We'll make some temporary concessions if necessary (maybe we can say "no religion can be criticized" instead of just "our religion cannot be criticized"...), to make some progress in an ignorant world, but of course this is only a stepping-stone.
[As the lady in "Jesus Camp" said, and this keeps echoing in my head... "Excuse me, but we have the TRUTH!"]
Posted by: Rob W | November 14, 2008 11:06 AM
Our wonderful Queen of England (and of other places) hosted the Saudi King to a beano some months ago and made a speech about our "shared values". Who knows what they are? In England, we don't cut people's heads or hands off, we don't insist that they wear tents just because they're women, we don't regard lying as a religious duty. I can't think of any values I share with the gobshites who run Saudi.
If ever there was a disproof of the existence of a God of the Jews, it's the oil riches of Saudi Arabia! Allah pwns Jehovah when it comes to mineral wealth.
Posted by: Sam C | November 14, 2008 11:11 AM
In other news, NAMBLA is hosting a conference on child welfare. In a press release, issued yesterday, they stated, "We seek to protect children from government intrusion into the bedrooms of these supple young boys. We stand for the children and their right to privacy."
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 14, 2008 11:16 AM
Who fell down at the UN to allow this meeting to take place in their name?
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | November 14, 2008 11:40 AM
marnk - I'll take your would for the progress being made in Saudi Arabia (though from what you wrote it seems to be more in spite of the government rather than because of it), but do think this conference is in any way aimed at promoting that type of religious tolerance? It looks to be more concerned with suppressing criticism of religion.
Posted by: Taz | November 14, 2008 11:43 AM
Who is representing atheism/humanism at this auspicious event?
Posted by: Pen | November 14, 2008 11:49 AM
Saudi Arabia will probably make peace first with the world of Christianity, since the House of Saud and all the other royal houses in the region have always had an affinity for the pragmatic Anglicanism represented by the UK and the WASP elite of the US. Harry St.John Philby, Kim Philby's father did more than anyone else to establish the British presence in Saudi Arabia. The Judaic people have a different problem. The founding leadership of Israel has had long standing ties with the Hashemites of Jordan who were the original keepers of the cities of Mecca and Medina well before the Ottoman took over the territory. The Saud tribe (which claims affinity with the Banu Quraish or the tribe of Mohammad himself) and the Hashemites feuded long for centuries until the Hashemites lost out after the discovery of oil on the peninsula, when the Brits with some US help pitchforked the Saud family onto a throne and helped them become royalty. Oil again. King Abdullah a fine administrator, may yet one day lead his nation out of the dead end it finds itself in with Israeli help. But for that he needs stability in Syria and Iraq. And then let us forget what is happening with the Kurds who are at war with everyone and simply refuse to recognise the traditional Shia-Sunni or Arab-Persian-Turkish fault lines. It is a fine mess and v. tangled.
Posted by: rimpal | November 14, 2008 11:50 AM
Pen: Who is representing atheism/humanism at this auspicious event?
The Invisible Pink Unicorn, of course. (Carl Sagan's ghost was busy.)
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 14, 2008 12:31 PM
Bush was there to speak his piece, saying "freedom includes the right of all people to worship as they see fit." Apparently the man is either immune to irony, or else is blissfully ignorant of the fact that his own party calls godless citizens "unamerican."
Posted by: Martian Buddy | November 14, 2008 12:40 PM
Y'know, you really need to stop linking to the Onion. Folks might actually take the stories seriously! This is a very funny parody. I mean, who'd think that someone would actually invite the fox into the henhouse?
I'll just be over here closing my eyes and singing "La la la!" at the top of my lungs...
Posted by: Mara | November 14, 2008 12:55 PM
Actually, the jerks never called to see if I was available. I am too busy, though...busy not existing. I was right. There is no life after death. I just can't figure out how I'm getting you this message.
Posted by: Carl Sagan's Ghost | November 14, 2008 1:27 PM
Wait, I get it: Saudi Arabia is going to be the example of how not to be tolerant.
Now it makes sense.
Are there any seats still available for viewing this farce? Sounds like it would be a hoot and a half. Have a few beers then go laugh your ass off.
Posted by: WRMartin | November 14, 2008 3:11 PM
Can we ship all the fundies to Saudi Arabia? They should get along well with the Muslim fundies.
Posted by: Katharine | November 14, 2008 3:11 PM
One more irony like this and I will lose the rest of my IQ and become stupid.
Posted by: IBY | November 14, 2008 3:26 PM
It's all about proselytization...
Posted by: ebina2 | November 14, 2008 3:26 PM
Yeah WRMartin that makes alot more sense.
I guess they should published a report based on this conference:
Religious tolerance: How not to do it.
Posted by: Coriolis | November 14, 2008 3:48 PM
As much as Republicans denounce homosexuality, the Saudis have us over a barrel, caught with our pants down. As long as they have oil that we need, we'll keep asking them to be gentle with us. That's the kind of loving the GOP can "get behind"
Posted by: R Hampton | November 14, 2008 4:07 PM
Mara:
Y'know, you really need to stop linking to the Onion.
It sure seems like one of their pieces, doesn't it?
Sad thing is, this is a perfect example that "truth is stranger than fiction" is not as tired an old saw as people would like to believe.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | November 14, 2008 6:19 PM
This sounds like a back stabing way of getting an anti-blasphemy meeting going with out really saying so.
Posted by: CybrgnX | November 14, 2008 7:46 PM
1. Mormons explain how to define marriage.
2. Saudis explain religious tolerance.
3. ???
Posted by: watercat | November 14, 2008 9:10 PM
Taz, I think I'm probably too emotionally invested in the country because of my history there to really give an unbiased critique of King Abdullah's true motivations: I see signs of progress and I get hopeful, I can't help it almost because of how harsh it was when I first started going there: being denied the right to something as fundamental as driving my own car, or being able to sit wherever I wanted even if it was by an unrelated male or not having to wear long sleeves and long pants in 100 degree weather. But those were minor things compared to what the citizens have to go through. I'm not defending the government's practices. And you were astute about the change probably largely coming from the people. I guess I just look at a country I spent a significant amount of time in - and even came to love, especially the Rub al Khali desert - and I hope for good things, based on tiny tidbits, like this:
BBC newstory: "Correspondents say King Abdullah has made reaching out to other faiths a hallmark of his rule since becoming king in 2005. He is the first reigning Saudi monarch to meet the Pope, for example."
Of course, I also had to put "christian" on my visa application in the blank next to "religion", because "none" wasn't allowed...I felt like putting "Judaism" a few times to see what would happen, but my Dad would have gotten in trouble, not me, since I was his property and his problem.
Posted by: marnk | November 14, 2008 9:33 PM
Quoth Taz:
It wasn't a fall; they were tripped by the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference).
This is just an attempt to have "blasphemy" (including all criticism of Islam) declared to be racism and/or xenophobia and outlawed. Jihad Watch has been all over this since the beginning; if you are concerned about the real threat to church/state separation and religious freedom, you should be reading it.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | November 14, 2008 11:09 PM
Back when he was still Crown Prince, intercepts of a bunch of Abdullah's phone calls to his oldest son were leaked to the international media.
Basically, both of them want reform. Hell they know they NEED reform if only to maintain their family's wealth and power but at the same time they're terrified of the power of the conservatives.
Abdullah's grandfather (IIRC) was assassinated for daring to allow girls to attend school at all. Abdullah has no desire to join him.
Moves like reining in the most extreme preachers and allowing other Muslim sects to open Mosques may seem trivial to us but they do represent progress.
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 14, 2008 11:22 PM
The only reason that Saudi's are reaching out to other faiths is so that they can get that blasphemy law passed. They figure (correctly) that other religions are also against criticism of their "sacred texts/symbols/ideas", and will join with them to make it happen. Fundamentalists care more about their dogma than who they have to join with to make their beliefs "safe from disrespect".
After all, a worldwide blasphemy rule would cover ALL religious dissent. Each majority group would (rightly) realize that they could do whatever they want to minority faith/non-faiths in their geographic area.
SCARY- this is 15th century thinking!
The worst part of this is that without Oil, Saudi's would be powerless, like they were before it's discovery. If the WEST, esp the USA wasn't such an energy hog, they wouldn't be so rich or influential. Their fanatical religion, and its influence, would be limited to their territory.
I do think that rising living standards will reduce the religious insanity in the middle east, and that many of the people are pushing for change. BUT as of now, having our economy so completely dependent on fossil fuels is suicidal.
We have the means to be mostly energy independent, if we only had the political will to do it. (Obama- at least he has a plan!!!!!)We need to do it for many reasons, but this is a big one. This type of law reverses hundreds of years of progress......
Posted by: StaceyJW | November 14, 2008 11:47 PM
Who is representing atheism/humanism at this auspicious event?
Posted by: Pen | November 14, 2008 11:49 AM
Center for Inquiry Defends Freedom of Expression at the U.N. Human Rights Council
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/unitednations/news/center_for_inquiry_defends_freedom_of_expression/
Posted by: maxamillion | November 15, 2008 1:05 AM
"also saw what inroads Western popular culture was making and while I hate the crass consumerism, it serves as an attractive incentive for the young people to broaden their experience"
I have seen the same moderating influence in some of the more traditional type places I been in the world. In fact, historically when Islam expands to the point of having to interact with other cultures it does moderate. That is after a long fight to conquer that fails in some cases but it does happen. Most Muslims could care less. They are nominal and live outside the Middle East. It is the strict sects that should be watched. The greatest weapon against this intolerance is the spread of Western Culture. Not because it is better but because it still contains a hint of the ideas of the Renaissance and Enlightenment that helped Europe shed it assholery in the name of religion and culiminated in the Declaration of Independence.
"We need to do it for many reasons, but this is a big one. This type of law reverses hundreds of years of progress......"
I could not agree more based on what I just stated above. Really about 800 years progress. Brave Heart is just a movie but it is based on some vague recolletions of events behind the act that I believed changed the world:
One man standing up and saying, "No you prick who thinks "God" told you to rule others and oppress them I am not taking your shit!!!!!!"
That is for the West. But others in World History have done it too. The change we need is a return to the ideas that started the country and just make sure that it applies to all this time around.
Posted by: King of Ireland | November 15, 2008 3:00 AM
But...but....Islam is a religion of peace!!!
Posted by: Someone | November 16, 2008 10:03 AM
"They make a wasteland and they call it peace". = DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 16, 2008 10:19 AM
This was the best article/headline combo ever:
Pope Calls Islam "Evil" - "Pope Must Die," Says Muslim Cleric
For Real...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23367232-details/The+Pope+must+die%2C+says+Muslim/article.do
Posted by: Dr.Toxic | November 17, 2008 11:58 AM