NationStates Jolt Archive

I would be forced to resign from the UN based upon seemingly the most harmless Article. The Holy Republic of Aegonia has always been ruled by religion. Although we don't persecute for others' beliefs, we certianly do endorse our own. And what about the many glorious nations ruled by dictatorship? Despite Article I, democracy is indeed not for everyone. This CATO Act is simply too broad to be stamped out onto the wonderfully diverse UN.

Thomas Cornelius Meinrad Augustine
Prime Minister
The Holy Republic of Aegonia

Well so far, most nations have been oposed, such is my nation's case. So, I suggest you wait it out, and see waht happens. :wink:

I agree with you completely. It looks as though it will not be passed. Im happy.

:? This is a slightly annoying issue. Im going to vote no.

I am delighted to see that fellow UN members are intelligent and do not just follow the herd. I enjoy continued faith in the cause of the UN, and celebrate its diversity with a vote against this proposal.

Thank you and bless you all equally.

My fellow nations, considering the history of violence committed against innocent people simply because of their spiritual beliefs, we believe that this article is an intelligent step forward for civilization. The entire resolution should be passed. The result would be a happier international community, except of course, for that segment of the world community which insists on imposing it's beliefs on others.

Unfortunately, I must respectfully disagree with Farmer Philosophers. Although Aegonia agrees that violence against the innocent should be stopped, it does not make the entire resolution valid. We must solidly stand by our position that if this resolution passes (which it seems likely now that it will not), we would have to leave the UN because we endorse our religion. Also, it seems that your final point is worded in backwards. The only group that would be happy about this resolution would be "that segment of the world community which insists on imposing its beliefs on others." The wonderful diversity of the UN is being threatened by this blanket statement proposal, and my fellow UN nations have proudly been voting against it.

Your opinion is recognized and respected, Farmer Philosophers. Thank you for the opportunity to debate the issue.

While in Avialis all of these articles are already in place, I must say that it is, in fact, too broad and that imposing it on other nations might be a bad move. These sorts of rights work well for our nation, but may not work well for others who have vastly different governmental systems.

So Avialis shall vote against this resolution. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, as otherwise we would have voted in support of the resolution.

~Tequila Raindancer,
Avialis Foriegn Affairs Delegate