I don't intend to post any more about the within topic, but again note the UN anti-blasphemy of Islam proposal throughout this year, which proposal has been not adopted by the White House (yet) and effects of which are addressed by the Becket Fund of religious freedom (same having UN Consultative status) at http://www.becketfund.org/files/a9e5b.pdf .

With USA mainstream media harking back to 9/11, quotes from the past (selectively, as if this or that guy or gal gets even ONE lil' ol' minutae...at THIS point..."right", well, who won't storm to vote for 'em?), and most local and national media projecting in nature "Sure, mortgage, Shearson, AIG fiascos hurt the economy big time, hate Bush/GOP, vote Obama, fixed...oh, and WE'D report on human interest if really anyone in OUR town or State were personally struggling financially"(repeat throughout USA), it seems fair to point out amazing parallels between the European Union Parliament, UN, and way most Democrats and even some GOP approach giveaways of resources et al as "pinwheels for peace, security, and personal financial solidity". 
 
Imagine leaving it to local Mayors up through UN Commissioners, worldwide, as to what does or merely might somehow somewhere affront Islam...in fairness, not even everyday Muslims would get a say.
 
What if it became that Darfur's Bashir and his funding of Janjaweed were deemed to be no more than one Muslim "delivering Allah's justice" to "naughty Muslims"; any Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, what have you, anywhere on earth could see their own government whisk them away as objecting to such practice "defames" a fundamentalist Islamic sensibility.
 
Atheist or "unchurched"? What if it is an internment-camp roundup for you if even appearing to not believe in or worship God is deemed the ultimate insult to Allah and thus Islam, by any official's hunch or crackpot New Age "evangelical" or insane party...worse, upon same's unique, HR 1955/287g type "intuition"?
 
Worst of all, imagine warrantless, non-habeas pickups under silent arrest actions...the point of all DHS and say-so laws IS to "avoid Islamic terror" and "offended senses", right? Anyone, non-Muslim clergy or otherwise, taking umbrage with such practice or questioning any arrest or detainment of others, could themselves be arrested, or at least invidiously called "scurvy, racist, nationalistic homophobe emboldeners of bitter nobodies who scare bin Laden". Quiet arrests contemplate "quiet" detentions and dispositions, as well...perhaps one day including nicely done-up camps with neat flowerboxes, where arrivals are told it's not so bad, but could they please take a shower first. For some reason, letters like KGB, NKVD, SS seem to swirl.
 
I think most people on earth, no matter humanist stoics or whatever leading faith, would simply settle for the age-old concept of doing the right thing, as God intends us, in every grand and humdrum course of human events...like, say, America did when Kennedy or Eisenhower were President.
 
But there HAS been a huge effort by some this year especially, including monetarily,  that the UN and Durbin et al should never have spent the 1990's concerned about Hussein's atrocities, nor should even guard against WTC type trouble...like that's just how we must let a small slice of Islam "blow off steam" and not feel "picked on"; ditto your Bashirs, Irans, Hamas, Laden, Taliban...who also are "free" to "punish" or "vent" against even other Muslims. Most importantly, there has been a huge media and communications effort to squelch and generally condemn Judeo-Christian beliefs and rites, in the USA and Europe.
 
We have candidates galore who tell us we must regain the faith of the Muslim world and regain international respect, whatever that means. The UN anti-blasphemy proposal, as it stands, sounds like little more than a way to globally "legitimize" Secret Police make-it-fit practices, while leaving terrorists and despots abroad just as cozy as they are today, and without a shred to do with any economy, farming, education, arts, medicine, religion, or anything else that makes up a truly progressive, or ANY, society.
 
Before February 2009, when it becomes an offense to use shortwave or any nature of over-the-air device, and before internet neutrality is severely cropped, maybe we should ask all candidates what their stance on the UN anti-blasphemy proposal is; and if not endorsing it for Federal adoption, would they let States' Rights or homerule for towns go along with it under HR 1955-type mentality?
 
If we're to take "international respect" and "protection of Islam" as assent, directly or by such tacit unexplained platitudes, then it would seem having same as one's prime protocol waters down credibility in anything one promises in a campaign, in ways not much good to anyone on earth regardless of nationality, persuasions, faiths. Again, maybe we should ask of candidates before communications get crimped February 2009.