NationStates Jolt Archive

I have recently proposed a UN resolution, my first one, and I wanted to know what you all felt about it.


Religio-Scientific Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Mild Proposed by: Zachnia
Description: In today's world of ever growing technology, and strong religious peoples, more and more conflict is growing. May it now be resovled that...

I) Religion, or religious peoples, will not challenge the authority or validity of science.

II) Science, or scientific people, will not question the truthfulness or any religion, be it monotheistic, or polytheistic.

III) That the disobeyors of this act will be punished, according to the rules of the nation in which it occured.

IV) That religion and science not be discussed in the same academic class.

These acts will ultimately help our society, and increase the civil rights of all humans, both religious and scientific.

How would Article II work out... exactly?

Doesn't that outlaw teaching evolution OR creation or any other theory for that matter?

Hell I could find a religion that is morally opposed to GRAVITY.

then you'd probably end up placed in some religious class, on account of the fact that you were being taught against your firm religious beliefs

How would Article II work out... exactly?

Doesn't that outlaw teaching evolution OR creation or any other theory for that matter?

Hell I could find a religion that is morally opposed to GRAVITY.

Really, morally opposed to gravity?

Have you considered that not being able to dissent might put a dampener on the quest for the TRUTH?

In effect, no-one would be able to discuss any aspect of religion, because those they disagreed with would accuse them of being "scientific people" under the law.

Would religious people be able to question or discuss other religions? What if they are scientists as well as being religious? If they are not able to question other religions, are they able to debate matters of faith within their own religion? At what point do slight differences amount to a distinct religion?

Would people be able to question the morality of practices associated with certain religions, such as keeping women locked up in their houses or genital mutilation of children?

II) Science, or scientific people, will not question the truthfulness or any religion, be it monotheistic, or polytheistic.
In other words, no scientific research can ever be done, since it involves the assumption that there is a scientific explanation for all phenomena (thus questioning the truthfulness 'or' several religions)? :lol:

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

You proposal is a nice idea, however I don't like it.

I) Religion, or religious peoples, will not challenge the authority or validity of science.

II) Science, or scientific people, will not question the truthfulness or any religion, be it monotheistic, or polytheistic.

I rather enjoy discussing and debating these topics from time to time. And parts of each of those are just asking for trouble. I.E. Not challenging one another. Had some logic not have been used back in the old days, we might all be calling eachother witches, and being hanged if we deny it...

As for III and IV, I've already explained that I like deabting religion and science, I don't think I should have this right restricted, or be punished for it.

Personally, I am not very bias either way, I figure most of the time that we will find out who's right and who's wrong when we die.

I have recently proposed a UN resolution, my first one, and I wanted to know what you all felt about it.


Religio-Scientific Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Mild Proposed by: Zachnia
Description: In today's world of ever growing technology, and strong religious peoples, more and more conflict is growing. May it now be resovled that...

I) Religion, or religious peoples, will not challenge the authority or validity of science.

II) Science, or scientific people, will not question the truthfulness or any religion, be it monotheistic, or polytheistic.

III) That the disobeyors of this act will be punished, according to the rules of the nation in which it occured.

IV) That religion and science not be discussed in the same academic class.

These acts will ultimately help our society, and increase the civil rights of all humans, both religious and scientific.

Are you serious? Please refrain from displaying your ignorance for all to see. Save yourself the embarassment. Why must so many treat religion and science as being in opposition? Take a little time to learn what they are both about. There are many of us who are both scientists and religious people, and THERE IS NO CONFLICT! Those who believe there are seem either ignorant of science and/or religion, or they choose some twisted, fundamentalist sect or cult and use that as their model for all religion. Your proposal will do nothing to increase civil rights, but it will cause more discord and will increase persecution and ignorance. ...not to mention that it is very discriminatory against nations that have a theocratic form of government. I strongly oppose such an act.

like I said, this was my first proposal... sorry to see you guys hate it so much. heh.

Obviously, this isn't quite getting done what I wanted it to, but don't go to personal insults (Biteme specifically)

Religion and science clash because, to some extent, they are inextricably linked. Plato, in his scientific observations, acknowledged the existence of a single God. He didn't pursue the matter any further than simple scientific inquiry, however. Plus, this limits free speech.

I think that a rewording would be in order. The general idea is interesting, though.

We in Gurthark believe that debate is one of the most vital (in both senses of the word) components of public life. There is little we can imagine more antithetical to our values than declaring particular topics closed to public discussion.

We vigorously oppose this proposal.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

interesting idea, but i think there are better ways of executing it than what has been stated; i'll go by the articles:

1)Religion, or religious peoples, will not challenge the authority or validity of science.

-First thing wrong with this, it violates freedom of speech (it may not be a problem in your country, but i'm sure there are a lot of UN nations which would voice similar concern as i)

-Second, Science itself always and always challenges its own authority and validity, why can't religion?


II) Science, or scientific people, will not question the truthfulness or any religion, be it monotheistic, or polytheistic.

-*I'm assuming the "or" is "of"* All of science questions the truthfulness of religion; so this would take down all science... not so good an idea.

III) That the disobeyors of this act will be punished, according to the rules of the nation in which it occured.

-This once again violates free speech.

IV) That religion and science not be discussed in the sme academic class.

-This is like what they are doing in public schools... it just makes people angry. I find this wrong because they are in some essences opposites, and you need opposites for the "socratic method" to be used. A lot of my philosophical classes, *and science/math classes* use this method, in which you take a thesis, argue the point with the antithesis, and create the synthesis, which becomes the thesis, and so forth. It is important NOT to take the ideas apart; they must both be used to enlighten people of the theories and ideas of our world.

Once again, i think a rewording or rethinking of what a bill dealing with scientific/religious conflicts is needed.

Religio-Scientific Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights...

IV) That religion and science not be discussed in the same academic class...


I once took a course on the "Philosophy of Religion" at a state university, in which both science and religion were mentioned quite frequently. As I recall, the course was taught by an agnostic.