Dear Ron,

Just don't be afraid; and thanks to you for the clarification. I can see that the automatic system in this website refers to the Universal Human Rights Declaration of 1948 - 1998. That has to do with some automatic replacement system that recognizes the words, "human rights" to take us to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Actually, my reference was to Article 1, paragraph 3 of The Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, Proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 36/55 of 25 November 1981. This Declaration implies that there may exist as well a frame for deliberation upon the subject, if it be necessary for public safety, etc. However, the text provided by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights refers to the actual articles and paragraphs through a number of preambular considerations that lead to the possible reason why the arguments may be in dispute on this subject. Please note that such considerations are different in both Declarations, possibly because of the different historical moments under which these declarations were put together.

The preambles are different in both texts, and such differences are not subtle, because while the preambles in the Universal Declaration of 1948 reveal the spirit of that time, in which the new world order was being seen as the end of the War and the beginning of a new era of brotherly acumen among all human beings, the newer Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief does explicitly refer to the danger of war in its third Consideration:

The different time in history between the two Declarations is fundamental for a clear understanding of this third preamble.

The preambular paragraphs lead to the existing rhetorical discrepancies on the interpretation of both Declarations. Paragraph 3 of the preambles give reference to the concerns upon war, while the Declaration of Human Rights did not say anything about war. Under the current state of affairs, any incendiary confrontation between the member states, could possibly accelerate unwanted developments towards a very difficult conundrum for the United Nations, which being an organ of peace, actually is also an executor of war, at the moment when diplomacy may have been driven to an edge.

As usual, it is left to the consideration of those who evaluate the petitions to decide how far the Council wants to go inside each member state and its affairs, to tell them how to behave regarding their individual interpretations of religious freedom applied to their own state affairs. Every member of the Council is aware of the sensitive ramifications that such interventionism may cause in the perception of the new member states, who being new participants in the democratic process, are coming from diverse moral and ethical traditions. I do not believe that the Council is acting intimidated when they assume their current caution, but I tend to believe that they understand the new nature of the present constellation presented by the addition of new member states: Many of the member states in the current dispute were not members of the Council in the years when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated. The understanding of and the way how every different state may put on practice new forms of democratic values is a process that may take a longer time, while new relations need also time to progress and develop, so that they may become able to grow in trusting bilateral perceptions. We are talking of bringing democracy to cultures that have been traditionally seclusive, asking them to take over fundamental modifications in their way of handling their own affairs, in spite of the fact that as a whole they may not have had access to identical democratic developments present in some of the countries of the West. Perhaps the Council is taking a few such facts under consideration when they opt for peaceful alternatives to any unwanted precipitation that would lead the member states into more violence and more war and more broken international relations than everyone wants to see happening at the present time.

There seems to exist an irresolvable oxymoron in the interpretation of the term sovereign states in the practical aspect, because according to the understanding of the states' sovereignty - at least in the theory of political realism (that seems to be the current form of state sovereignty in function among the member nation states), the different states have distinctive interpretations in the ways they put on practice the freedoms valid to the individual diverse peoples. I don't know what is ethical to do, when such different values contradict each other. I don't know what is fair in the application of justice. Justice by whom? How do we know that one member state is more sane than another? Where is the neutral intelligence that will produce the normative formula of "democracy for all"? Isn't democracy also an intrinsic development evolving from inside each member state, according to their own pace, preferences and convictions? Ah, here is the crucial point of reference: If a state believes that faith is in command, and the state regulator does not allow for human reason to be part of the decision making also by basing their arguments on their right to religious freedom, how do you want to contradict them from the view point of non-religion, if the Council protects the sovereignty of the peoples also in reference to their right to choose and practice religion in their particular countries? Here is where the interpretations start to clash against each other, as the arguments are not all ultimately congent and it is impossible to fill the loops without interfering with the people's freedom. Of course, opposition can go on denouncing and accusing. But, what is won through such process is that the accused countries may feel intruded, drop their membership in the Council and keep going.

One culture may understand the law as of what has been practiced through the consent of vast majorities of people for a long period of time. Another culture may have experienced years of trial and error that have led to a different interpretation of tolerance; and that same culture may be interpreted as a decay of all values by those who didn't go through the same historical developments. Not all of the member states have arrived to electoral processes that may allow for the public's informed decisions on subjects that may lead them to more democratic legislation, not all the member states come from the same level of educational background given to the people; there are issues with argumentative mass-manipulation either from the religious propaganda or from the propaganda done by private interests of whatever kind. The best PR wins the opinion of the masses, and the UN Council may eventually see nation of Pastafarias running for a cause, in which case even they would have the right to access the democratic process and have their logical fallacy considered under the argument of religious freedom. The divisive line is harder to define today than it would have been sixty years ago, when there were majorities of Catholics, Protestants and Jews in the UN scene for decision making. The time in history is a fully different one today, and all of these intricacies are - I believe - being taken into consideration by the Council.

While some countries have developed laws and protections for individual freedom that are inclusive of the rights of the minorities, other nation states - including and not limited to a number of the "developed societies" in United Europe - are still wearing diapers in regards to those same issues, possibly because the idea of integration and diversification hasn't been part of their historical traditions but until very recently in history. Europe itself is still not a color-less society, but old and strong divisions are cause of tensions, not only between Europeans and newcomers, but also among Europeans against Europeans. The historical separation of Walloons and Flemish should give you a clear idea of what I am referring to. Now well... if the problems between people who have been in a marriage all that long are as much divisive, what else do you expect from a constellation of UN "traditional" member states and those who are seen as the "Non-traditional new comers"? The unspoken taboo of United Europe is that, although there is a written word for the equal treatment of all peoples, in the practice some of these countries treat their immigrants like crap, no matter they have created so many ghettos of socially under-served human beings surgically transplanted to populate such a sad artificial social construct of dehumanization as Brussels - the navel of the world - has been turned into. How can one tell who has the moral and ethical authority to impose on the particular member states how to behave, if there is so much still loaded in every nation state's own backyard regarding human rights, equality, rights of women, rights of the minorities, rights of whole nations to be divided if the majorities keep desiring that division, equal access to education, etc. The already unspoken problems are many, time is of the essence and who blames those who are thinking of leaving...?