NationStates Jolt Archive

I ask for your support for a proposed UN resolution, that it can reach quorum:

New Proposal for UN Resolution:

The Establishment of Religion
A resolution to ensure religious freedom and equity

We, the assembled nations of the UN, rule that no government shall make any law abridging the right to the free exercise of religion or the practice of religious belief, unless such practice interferes with the rights of others. Nor should UN Nations make any law regarding the establishment of religion.

We define the "establishment of religion" as any law that: prefers any religion over any other or none; grants rights to the religious over the non-religious (or vice versa) or to one religious grouping over another; allows the establishment of religion (or non-religion) in schools, hospitals, prisons, the judiciary, the civil service or any other part of the state apparatus; or privileges members of any religious (or non-religious) grouping on the basis of their religious beliefs.

We urge all nations to adopt this resolution on the basis that equality, freedom of worship, scientific progress, the general peace and the freedom of countries from outside interference will be guaranteed by preventing any religious organisation from gaining special rights, or attempting to use to mechanisms of state to unfairly further their religion, religious beliefs, or social agenda.

Thanks!

The People's Republic of Sparacism

Great, just what we need, another individual spouting religion this and religion that, do you people ever take a break?

Do you honestly think I or any other liberal, democratic and MORALISTIC nation would willingly institute any laws that would effect the beliefs of our people, for the positive or negative? The last thing that the world needs to clog up its courts and places of law are people banging on about their religion, I mean, would I want to pass a law that would allow people to form a cult that wold culminate in their "spiritual release" through suicide? Should my government tell me and my children, if I had any, that its okay to kill small animals to a pagan god with a blunt axe, just because its what we think we should to to appease the "powers that be". Because if they argued they all wanted to, how can I stop the misguided fools from whacking themselves or their pet cat? Because the nature of the law you propose focuses on religious rights. Should this proposal make it to the U.N. I will do whatever I need to shoot it down and failing that, I will resign.

Don't get me wrong, its a kinda good (No, not god) idea and I respect what your trying to say, but you have stated oh so too briefly, if you can hammer out a bigger, more SPECIFIC version that was liberal in its application then I would wholeheartedly support it.

With fond respects, a representative of Komokom, to further the use of rational and interlectually stimulating discusion.

I agree fully.

-edit-

I agree fully with spartacist

i agree as well...it's senseless

:roll: Sorry, I just reread your proposal, I only browsed it over earlier, sorry, now I actually absorbed it I change my opinion, go for it, but still try to make it more specific, but yeah, yikes. Sorry about that! :)

A some what embarassed representative of Komokom.

What do you take us for? Idiots?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

Komokom,

Firstly, I'm new here, so I wouldn't know about whether people are going on about religion this, religion that.

Secondly, no, I would not expect any moralistic country to pass a law that limit or affect it's people's beliefs. If you had read my resolution, you'd have found that it actually protects people's rights to have and practice whatever religious beliefs they want. My resolution limits the states power to officially promote one religion over the other - however individual rights are unaffected - in fact they are protected.

Thirdly, I would not want people to abuse animals (or anyone else) through their religious beliefs - but then governments already have laws (or should) banning cruelty to animals etc, which should cover that eventuality. I do not see my new law as a stumbling block to that at all - I see it rather as a promotion of the human right to peacefully worship (or not worship) - but at the same time a limiting of the state's power to prefer one form of worship over another. If you really really want me to edit it, to include a clause banning cruelty to animals then I will, but I think the spirit of the law is clear.

I'm also glad that you changed your mind over my act. I also find it unfortunate that letila has not chosen to actually back up her statement with proposed amendments or objections. However, back over to you guys.

While freedom of religion is a basic tennet of life in The Free Land of Youghiogheny, we believe that this issue is best resolved at a national level.

By passing this resolution, the United Nations would essentially be impinging on the national sovereignty of the world's many theocracies.

We would oppose this resolution on the principle that self-determination in some national affairs is vital to the health of the world body.

Respectfully submitted,

Xavier Jameson
UN Delegate & Hoopy Frood
The Free Land of Youghiogheny

I see no problem with a official state religion along the lines of Great Britain. It would be an official church but no one is forced to believ in or join the church. The Head of State or some appointed preist(ess) presiding over state functions would not be a big deal as once again no one is required to join in.

I'm thinking about doing this in the USSB because religious rituals provide a common bond for all people.

The Allied states of Armandal would vote agianst this proposal.Faith should not be controled at any level of government unless the government is based on church and state and individual faith.

Our nation is a one of those states that does not seperate nor intrude between church and state,people believe as they will,although non sense and borderline acts such as the worship of evil gods is not allowed within our borders, but because of our balance and wisdom we have no prisons because we dont need them.The people follow thier own path to enlightenment.It must be remembered that faith is a personal issue..and niether church,nor state,nor books,nor technolgy can teach a person "thier" own personal truth.

"The Governing Houses of Armandal"

The uber-Catholic peoples of The Greif laugh whole heartidly at your ridiculous proposition. Actually, we have a counter-proposition: join the Catholic church, now, or burn in hell for all eternity.

The uber-Catholic peoples of The Greif laugh whole heartidly at your ridiculous proposition. Actually, we have a counter-proposition: join the Catholic church, now, or burn in hell for all eternity.

INFIDEL!! YOU WILL ALL CONVERT TO THE ONE TRUE FAITH (namely mine), OR THE GODS WILL RAIN DOWN DEATH AND DESOLATION!!!

[sarcasm]

Its a good thing you put that "sarcasm" in there, otherwise I wouldn't have guessed. Thanks for the heads up. :roll:

This bill may look nice but it would be impossible to inforce. Governments all to often go against the most popular group, of course when they go against a minority their's $%&* to pay. Hey was I just bleeped out? Why you little %*@!$ I oughta %&$# ^%#& %$#@
Do to technical difficultys this brodcast could not be finished.

Yough,

Whilst I completely agree in principle that it is important for the UN not to impinge on the national sovereignty of member states in too draconian or invasive a degree, I believe that the right to the free exercise of religion is absolutely fundamental as a human right, and should be implemented worldwide. I also believe that the only way to protect the rights of the religious (and non-religious) is to ensure that government does not and cannot take sides, or prefer one religion over another or none.

I also feel that it is a fundamental right of all believers and unbelievers alike not to have their personal religious opinions impinged upon by the state apparatus, including all those institutions listed in my draft proposal above. But thankyou for your respectful views.


Basadia,

I think you ought to come and live in Great Britain, as I do, and you would see that religious discrimination and indoctrination, especially in schooling, is rife. It is unfortunate that our thanks to the religiousity and right-wing nature of our government, we encourage rather than discourage it.


Armandal,

I would urge you to re-read my proposal. It is in fact designed with the express purpose to completely free the individual from any sort of pressure or coercion by the state with regards to religion. We in the People's Republic of Spartacism believe wholeheartedly that religion is an individual choice, and that unless other's rights are imposed upon by the practice of a religion, that that practice should be free and without interference from the state leglislature. In other words, from ought I can tell, our position is similar to that of your country.


The Greif,

I'm afraid that, since condoms don't let HIV through in our country, that we must respectfully decline communion with the Pope, the Vatican, or Catholicism.


Thunderbird,

Very similar leglislation is already enforced in several real life countries. America and France for example (not the happiest bedfellows at the moment ironically) are quite thoroughly secularised states, and yet have an active and free religious life among their citizens.

Haha...some would argue against the entire 'America is secularized' line, but that's an argument for another day.

The People of New Clarkhall would reject such a proposal on a number of grounds.

1) What of the current Theocracies that exist in the world? Is the UN now going to ban an entire host of nations from being part of it?

2) There simply aren't enough safegaurds on what IS and what IS NOT a religion. Does a group that espouses cannibalism count as being a religious group? If a govt. can ban such a group, then why can't it ban Satanists and devil worshipers...and then Zoroasterians....and then Muslims and Hindus and Jews? There simply isn't enough definition of what does and does not constitute a religion.

3) If 99% of New Clarkhallers want their laws based on what is said in the Bible or the Koran or the Torah, who is the UN to deny them their right? Isn't the UN interfering in the internal laws of a nation now? Isn't the UN stifling the democratic demands of a sovereign nation's own people?

In short, New Clarkhall fully support religious tolerance and diversity, but rejects the concept of the UN interfering in what is essentially local issues.

-New Clarkhall.

To answer #3, the rights of the other 1% outweigh the desires of the 99% to oppress them.

1. Theocracies, who form only a small part of the United Nations framework, would be forced to reform in order to secularise their state apparatus, or would in the unfortunate event of failure to reform, face either UN sanction or possible expulsion. However, what sort of UN sanction could possibly be taken is up to the UN, not to the proposed resolution.

2. A religious belief is defined simply (by the dictionary definition) as a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe, or a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. In the case of a religion that espoused cannibalism, that would be deemed as "interfering with the rights of others", as per the wording of the resolution.

3. In a constitutional system, subscribed to by every country that joins the UN for example, the wishes of the majority are superceded by certain basic rights of the individual. For example, 95% of my population may want to kill the other 5% - that wouldn't make it right - and in a constitutional system of government the other 5% would be protected from what Mill termed "the tyranny of the majority". The UN, as I mentioned earlier, is such a constitutional system. Of course, we must be very careful that the rights we prescribe constitutionally are essential and basic enough to warrant the suspension of democratic determination. I believe that the right to religious freedom and equality is just such a right.

Essentially, I believe in a constitutional system of democracy, where the wishes of the people are taken into consideration in matters of how to live together, and how to use resources - but where the basic rights of the individual are protected no matter how small a minority that individual find him- or her-self in. As Judge William Overton, presiding over Mclean vs Arkansas Board of Education put it:

"The application and content of First Amendment principles are not determined by public opinion polls or by a majority vote. Whether the proponents of Act 590 constitute the majority or the minority is quite irrelevant under a constitutional system of government. No group, no matter how large or small, may use the organs of government, of which the public schools are the most conspicuous and influential, to foist its religious beliefs on others."

That is exactly the sort of society I want to live in.