NationStates Jolt Archive

New proposal: Unrestricted Faith Non-Faith

25-10-2003, 09:09
Here is one that I feel everyone, on matter which side of the religious spectrum you may be on, reguardless of their beliefs can vote on. This allows both the believer and non-believer to voice their opinions openly and punishes those who would flame against anothers views. Check it out and see what you think.
25-10-2003, 10:57
Please elaborate on the last sentence
[qoute="Popsland"]Violators of this policy shall immediately have to open their country borders to all people of every Faith or Non-Faith group wishing to enter[/quote]

First serious problem that this creates that if enforced it will make it much more difficult for dicators to crack down on subversives because they hide behind this law. Political groups will try to pretend they just have some form of religion or non religion. This arguement supports my later suggestion.
Though any nation that at the moment has freedom of religion has found ways to deal with it, it does cause problems. Problems that make it difficult for a lot of democracies to crack down on what it sees as threats but who are hiding behind freedom of religion.
For example in my country there are some troubles about religios groups that might be saying according to media say seditional speeches but they are much tougher to deal with because of religional freedom. This are little things we as democracy are more than willing to live with, however they might be completely unacceptable to dictorships, especially the not so stable ones.

I also notice you use non-belief system and Non-Faith on another position. You would not know how much trouble such a little detail could bring in the enforcing af a law :P.

But what seems most puzzeling for me is how you set the effect.
More religious freedom will increase moral decence? There are some arguments against that.
And in your description you say it w that less civic freedom?!?

First of all, increasing the rights of people to do what they want generally increases there freedom, but then again that is only the description. However it might set your thinking patron.

You suggest that increasing religious freedom increases moral decency. That is probably bias. First of all, lack of religious freedom usually is there mostly to increase moral decency :!: . Most religions feel that they have to be crack down on other religions because they are not decent. Forcing religions to people most of the time also means forcing an ethic system on them.
Actually the way you describe it actually strengthens there point a lot. You say they can have any faith or non-faith. Whereby I like to say that a lot of non-faith, definitily any, can have almost no decency at all. Atheisism is very flexable in its moral code. As far as I know it is mostly based on do what feels good to you. Well, a lot of people feel strange things.
Afcourse then there are sects that claim sexual freedom and other things some religions and also to some people are really questionable things. Let alone a faith that says, sacrfice one person a day, or lie to everybody you meet, or stealing is oke. Not saying that the law will alow it. But I don't think those faith will do much good for the moral decency of a country.

I think you are talking about the other side of the coin. Cruell supression of faiths. Thinks like stopping abortion. People who qoute the bible instead of following there consciousness. Judgement of religious people on others. I know those things exist. But I am afraid you breathed a bit to much modern western thinking then.

Please try to think about the possibility, ergo nderstand that all those so call moral indecent and sometimes cruel things come in existence with one major goal in mind. To increase the decency of the people. Most of those judgements will be made, they try all but pretty much fail in that, on people that act morally indecent. If you call forcing it on to people morally indecent, your off in my opinion of the mark.

I like to assume that moral decency remains about the same. Thereby assuming that the fear of the churches is pretty over rated.

This law does nothing more than increase the civil rights of people to believe in whatever they want to believe. That is freedom, civic liberty. It does not make people have better morals at all. Not at all. Most believers actually think it makes things only worse.
What this resoluition will do is is stop the forcing of religion. Judgement will not stop, but at least the law will forbid to act on it.

Freedom, just plain freedom. This has in my opion, but I am quite confident of it, nothing to do with moral decency at all. That is just bias thinking that to be free, is good, is ethically more just.

In this form I would suggest people to not approve until the effect is changed.

I would also suggest a counter proposal from religious people. Now that would make it intresting. It should be something like, a stricker control of the state on religion. And having more rights to force people into religious morals and be more punitive for not doing ethically pure behavoir. Like not loving everybody you meet. Not having sex with strangers. Not cheating in a marriage. Not killing and all the other of those 10 commandments or whatever variant your church has. Now THAT increases moral decency. Brings pretty much a major blow to the freedom we have in our democracies, but it would be a nice way to force moral behavior.
I would suggest however each state can choice which religion they want to support. This proposal could come in different forms, preferable voted appart. For example, every state should have a state religion. State and religion can no longer be seperated. and the last most uhm...horrible :P one would be that religious laws should be included in state laws in every country. Yes freedom goes to hell. And some people would feel quite miserable. But at least you know that if you steal you lose your hand, so stealing will be reduced. And you know that if people pay respect to there parents, do not cheat on there spous, and don't lie or they would be in serious trouble.

This is afcourse all just my humble opion :P, and you are free to have an opion of your own, god thank. Change the effect, and I would support it.

ps. There might be an idea that it will influence the eduction level of a country if religious docrtrince may not be forced on people. However that is a really really hairy one. Maybe a bit to hairy for my taste to respond on if someone proposes it. But we will see then.