What you can learn from the article:
- The UN have a special rapporteur on religious freedom. Why? Because the UN is defending religious freedoms as it is defending other humans rights. Aiming to defend religious freedom is hardly the same as attacking all religions, is it?
Fun fact: many times the UN has condemned violence against religious minorities, unfair legal restriction on religious freedom, etc. Recently they done so on behalf of JW in Russia. The UN defends freedom of religion, and doesn't attack it. - The UN's special rapporteur on religious freedom stated that violent extremism should not be tolerated, not even when the extremists claim it's their religious right to kill those they don't like.
If stating the obvious - killing people because they don't believe what you believe - is seen as an attack on freedom of religion, the people who think that should perhaps re-calibrate their moral compass.
He also stated that legal discrimination should be undone, even if the apparent ground for this discrimination are claimed to be religious beliefs. - The person who wrote this Washington Post article is a donkey, and so are the editors over there.
They're all concerned about someone saying their right to discriminate isn't absolute. And the donkey fails to realize that his views are only made possible because 1) he enjoys the religious freedom he wants to deny others and 2) he is part of the majority religion where he lives.
Imagine this person lived in Sharia country; would he still argue that his government has every right to embed in the legal system all things Islam? That punishing him for not going to Friday prayer makes sense?
I can't believe how short-sighted this donkey is. - The JW who share this story are donkeys too, because they fail to see that the UN is talking on their behalf too. JW are a minority religion, persecuted in some countries. If the words of the UN rapporteur were followed everywhere, JW would not be persecuted anymore, and would enjoy more freedom.
The UN actually does the opposite of what JW claim they (will) do.
Anyway, long story short: the UN condemns violence and discrimination against all, including against the religious. And they say violence and discrimination is still wrong, even when claimed to be based on religious beliefs.
Does that even sound close to an attack on religion?