NationStates Jolt Archive

Bit concerned at this article - it appears to imply that if I start a new political party and call it a religion, I will be free to kill, murder, con or anything, other people merely on the say so that I believe what I have been doing is dictated by God or something. Am I, perhaps, reading too much into it?
:?

Under this resolution, a religion cannot be outlawed. However, murder can be outlawed, and somebody that killed somebody else on religious grounds could be prosecuted, not for their religion, but for the act of murder.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

Bit concerned at this article - it appears to imply that if I start a new political party and call it a religion, I will be free to kill, murder, con or anything, other people merely on the say so that I believe what I have been doing is dictated by God or something. Am I, perhaps, reading too much into it?
:?

You can be punished for your actions, but not your beliefs.

Not sure that this article is written in such a way as to prevent an individual from claiming immunity for henious acts.

Unless this article is withdrawn, or amended, Brigstonia will be unable to vote for this motion.

I am also concerned about this article. Our country is a tolerant country (xkeja is one of our principles), but there should be a right to censor or even to forbid some religions, which plan to overthrow the government or plan to commit mass suicide.

This article would completely go against my constitution, which states that the country must be completely free of religion. However, executions of those people who flout this part of the constitution are not allowed. Instead, they are deported to a nation of their choice.

Does a state free of any religion not lack morality?

An individual, or a nation, can have a code of ethics without it being a religion.

Brigstonia is not for or against religion per se, just aware that the article appears to provide a defense for heinous crimes in the name of religion.

Sorry, this was directed to the nation of Moontian!

It is still a given that morality has nothing whatsoever to do with religion and it is a nonsense to imply that only religious people are moral, in fact patently ridiculous, considering the atrocities that have been inflicted in the name of religion.

Religion requires a behavior in certain moral rules. I did not say, only religious people are moral. I ment that it is not a good thing to abolish religion, since often people get their moral values from their religon. so that a religion-free nation tends to have less moral inhabitants.
Of course it can go in the completly wrong direction and we all know the terrible crimes, which were done in the name of religion. Because of these two extremes the country of rejistania allows you to choose your religion, but wants to keep the right to interfere, if a religious group breaks the law or plans it.

Does a state free of any religion not lack morality?

An absolutely absurd statement (and yes, I read the other posts above this). Morals and religion are not linked. Most major religions have a set of 'rules" or guidelines that its members are told to adhere to, with very little variance from those guidelines. Individuals each have their own set of morals and ethics. Thomas Moore couldn't endorse Henry's divorce based on his morals, yet Henry had no qualms about it. Whether or not you consider divorce to be immoral depends on your point of view. Morals still exist without religion. It's just that the morals of non-religious people tend to be a set that each has come up with themselves, based on personal experiences, beliefs, etc., instead of having a code dictated to them.

An absolutely absurd statement (and yes, I read the other posts above this). Morals and religion are not linked. Most major religions have a set of 'rules" or guidelines that its members are told to adhere to, with very little variance from those guidelines. Individuals each have their own set of morals and ethics. Thomas Moore couldn't endorse Henry's divorce based on his morals, yet Henry had no qualms about it. Whether or not you consider divorce to be immoral depends on your point of view. Morals still exist without religion. It's just that the morals of non-religious people tend to be a set that each has come up with themselves, based on personal experiences, beliefs, etc., instead of having a code dictated to them.

Individuals don't have their code of ethics out of nothing. They are influenced by the experience, the up-bringin and the education. In all this subjects religion plays a role and helps by this, to make the different individual ethics compatible.

I'm sorry, but my nation has compulsory military service, and the clause prohibiting that concerns me. The supremecy clause which asserts itself over the decrees of my legislature also troubles me, it limits the sovereignty of my own governance. This nation seems to really threaten the authority of my legislature... However it is a nicely worded resolution, it just goes a bit too far in some respects.

Religion is not inherently a catalyst for morality, it is in fact at times a deterrent to open and honest morality because it leads to a mentality of one-way morality which then creates superior and inferior persons and causes conflict and oppression.

An absolutely absurd statement (and yes, I read the other posts above this). Morals and religion are not linked. Most major religions have a set of 'rules" or guidelines that its members are told to adhere to, with very little variance from those guidelines. Individuals each have their own set of morals and ethics. Thomas Moore couldn't endorse Henry's divorce based on his morals, yet Henry had no qualms about it. Whether or not you consider divorce to be immoral depends on your point of view. Morals still exist without religion. It's just that the morals of non-religious people tend to be a set that each has come up with themselves, based on personal experiences, beliefs, etc., instead of having a code dictated to them.

Individuals don't have their code of ethics out of nothing. They are influenced by the experience, the up-bringin and the education. In all this subjects religion plays a role and helps by this, to make the different individual ethics compatible.

I think the point you are missing is that even in nations devoid of religion, there are morals and those morals may or may not be better or worse than any the religiously devout come up with.

The statement that you're earlier post is "patently absurd" is in fact correct. There is no requirement, or even a real correlation between having or not having religion and having or not having morals.

I am personally very against any form of "organized" religion. In my view as soon as you say "this is how you should be" you have destroyed the inherint good your religion does for you, because it is no longer for you alone. Every person is different, every person should handle their spirituality individually.

period.

Article IV- That no person shall be censored, sued, or prosecuted for his political or religious beliefs.

So do I take it that if I become a Thugee of India, for example, I will be entitled to assassinate whoever Kali thinks should die?

Or that muslims and mormons, again for example, will be legally free to have full benefits of marriage within a member state, for each and every wife?

I'm sure that most representatives of the various states within this union can come up with a couple more examples ....

And then move onto the political situation - does ethnic cleansing become lawful?

And before you say that none of the above will be possible, please do consider -

"All legislation in conflict with these acts are hereby null and void."

Which would legally invalidate anyone who thinks otherwise.

I believe that Cato is a step too far.

:shock:

Article IV doesn't really bother me, as it only protects beliefs, not actions. You can believe God told you to assassinate someone all you like, but the moment you do it, your actions may well constitute murder and are not protected. For the record, whether or not someone believes God told them to kill is highly unlikely to be affected by any legislation.

However, the supremacy clause at the end bothers me greatly, and is reason enough to oppose the acts, however noble their intent.

"highly unlikely"

To Brigstonia is just not good enough

My nation cannot endorse these Acts.

We feel the Cato Acts infringe on several important areas of national sovereignty.
We do not have a difficulty with any of the provisions in the act - in fact, our laws already incorporate and exceed these Acts. We just do not feel that it is within the remit of the UN to legislate in areas of religious practise or military service.
We may have the official stance of having no religion, most of our people may view organised religion as being contrary to our moral ethos - and morality is no more or less than the rules that a culture enforces as being necessary to preserve it - but we would never stop any of our citizens from believing what they like. Believing that it is right for a wife to be burned on her husbands grave is a citizens right, we'd never lock a person up for such a belief. Actually trying to do it would be something different, and would be met with the heavy lead club of the law.


I know some nations with a long tradition of univeral military service that has been reinforced by national plebiscite, do we now tell those people that they must stop that practice, perhaps in the face of aggresive neighbours? These Acts are noble. They are also inflexible and a step too far.
We note that Cato the Younger was surely one of the greatest and most incorruptable men of all time. The man couldn't be bought. He stood fore square behind the freedoms of his ancient Republic and by golly, we could do with a few more like him now.
But, y'see, his obduracy bordered on the fanatical. The sod never smiled. Be careful of a man who never smiles and never compromises. His opposition to all attempts at compromise destroyed peace talks between Caesar and Pompey. He may have put the final nail into the coffin of the Republic and the slide into dictatorship inevitable.
Lessons from history indeed.

"highly unlikely"

To Brigstonia is just not good enough

Nor would it be to us, if the "highly unlikely" referred to the act protecting otherwise unlawful actions in the name of religion. However, it doesn't, it refers to an individual's belief being changed by this, or any other legislation, if said individual is inclined to believe God wants him/her to become some sort of holy assassin. IOW, passage of these acts is not going to lead anyone to commit murder who wouldn't have anyway. The most it will do is give them a flimsy avenue to try to exploit in their own defense, and one which the wording of the article does not support.

Your Thugees will still follow "Kali's orders", even if it doesn't pass, and their actions will still be murder, and prosecutable as such, even if it does pass.

I think that some stuff should be censored. like cursing and junk. but as far as religion goes, people should be able to speak freely.