Yet, I do not think this is a good idea; it would certainly be unconstitutional in the United States where people can say whatever they wish about religion, whether it is well founded or not (we produced both Sam Harris and Jerry Falwell; Jonathan Edwards and Anton LaVey). More to the point, while I understand the frustration of my Islamic distant cousins in the faith - a war is being waged against them, being called a "Clash of Civilizations", by some of the most uncivilized elements of the West - I do believe that silencing dissent is hardly the answer. The resolution reads in part:
[Nations are] to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence.
I would go so far as to say that, by pushing and passing this resolution, the UN is actually doing something counter-productive, because they are encouraging the silencing of dissent, based upon religious principles. As an American, I find this grotesque. Perhaps were I a member of a faith group under serious assault around the world, having my faith claims not only insulted but called "anti-religious" by ignoramuses and imbeciles, I might feel differently than I do. Alas, I do not, and while I sympathize, as I said above, I cannot say this is really productive. We need all voices, even those that find religion silly or pernicious, if we are going to move forward.
