NationStates Jolt Archive


Religous Tolerance and Freedoms Act (Endorsements Needed!)

Joshu
02-01-2004, 18:41
Before I go any further into this matter, I must first state my need for endorsements. As of now, I only have one endorsement, and need another before I may make this proposal. So, I must ask for endorsements. If you would like to, here is the link: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=joshu . Now for the body of my (as of yet theoretical) proposal. However, it may seem a bit unorganized, as I have not had much time to organize my points.

As the title states, this proposal deals with religion. I have noticed (both in and out of NationStates) that in almost any country, the major/"official" religion of the country is typically held and displayed as truthful, right, and the only way to go. Other religions, however, (minorities especially) are shown as fanciful, ignorant, something to be ignored. This especially happens in public schools, when the world's major religions are discussed in History classes. Also, religious minorities are frequently shunned/abused by majority organizations. Thus, I move that the UN make a resolution to protect all religions, and to punish groups that abuse other religions. More points on this Act will come soon.
02-01-2004, 18:45
Only nations in your region can endorse you, so you should probably ask on your regional message board instead.
02-01-2004, 18:52
Joshu--

Come to our region: The Confederacy of the Isles and I will endorse you. I will also lobby other members in the region to endorse you. It sounds like a terrific resolution and when it makes to to the List of Proposals, I will approve of it and vote for it if it reaches the floor.

Holy Emperor Elect of Anthonycha
Chang Buck Yunn
Collaboration
02-01-2004, 18:58
You are in a very small region, and your delegate is a corrupt dictator.

We suggest you relocate to a larger and more sympathetic region; this will enhance your efforts.
02-01-2004, 20:28
In the Empire, all public displays of religion are banned. Personally, I believe that this is the best way, since there is no way to tell what religion a person is, so everyone is treated equally.
Santin
02-01-2004, 21:28
I worry that this proposal might have the unintended consequence of trampling the freedoms of speech and expression. In the event that anyone attempts to ban "shunning" of any group, I believe such a ban would infringe on the freedom of free association. Careful wording is a must.
Joshu
03-01-2004, 00:09
:oops: Being new to NationStates, I forgot that endorsements only come from within my own nation. And, I'm afraid I must decline all offers to move from Ninjao.

Santin wrote:"I worry that this proposal might have the unintended consequence of trampling the freedoms of speech and expression. In the event that anyone attempts to ban "shunning" of any group, I believe such a ban would infringe on the freedom of free association. Careful wording is a must."

The main purpose of this act I will propose upon receiving all the necessary endorsements is to ensure the equality of all religions in every nation (at least those with UN membership). Even in nations with one official religon, others should be able to practice freely without having to move to other nations to do so. The purpose of the act is not to ban "shunning" by one group, so long as said "shunning" does not interfere with the daily lives/worship of other groups. Yes, I do use this example quite frequently, but here I go. The Westboro Baptist Church, for example, goes well out of its way to berate and belittle homosexuals. ( www.godhatesfags.com for examples of such activities) It is exactly these kinds of groups that this act will help to put a stop to.

I am hoping for a great deal of support when I am able to propose this Religious Tolerance and Freedoms Act. Anyone with opinions on this act, or ways to improve it, please feel free to contact me.
Santin
03-01-2004, 00:51
I'd have to disagree. The right to call someone evil or stupid is an inherent and critical aspect of freedom of speech. If you don't like them, you're likewise free to call them evil and stupid yourself. That's how it works for me. I can't support the concept of furthering freedom through the direct limitation of another critical freedom.