03-01-2004, 02:55
In an earlier thread, I (accidentaly) made a statement that sounded as if one could make it into a proposal. However, due to my lack of experience in writing proposals (I would hate to see the idea go to waste) I ask those experienced in forming coherent proposals to please help me restate my idea, point out needed clarification, what I overlooked, etc. I will respect any reasonable criticism though I will debate it if I disagree. Furthermore, I do not accept the separation of Church and state as a valid reason to disprove national sovereignty because the UN has not voted on the former and accepted it as a resolution.
New Babel wrote:The only sensible reason to ban "religion" is if it is violent.
Nicely said, this comment clearly shows the line drawn between national sovereighnty and international security issues. Rethelanuim is willing to accept an amended version of this proposal (since I do not have experience forming a proposal, I'll just give an explanation of it):
Banning government supported religion in schools infringes upon the (hopefully still UN-endorsed) idea of the rights of a country's leader to establish his own government. Such a proposal, in this form, especially overlooks the smaller nations (and the islands) that have one religion, or are unified by a state religion. Furthermore, the UN's concern lies with international security, and as long as religion does not encourage international hostility, the consequences remain for the country's leader to deal with. Teaching a child from an early age about the sinfullness of stealing and murder, for example, clearly does not threaten the safety of UN members, nor does it severely deny the child his/her security. The parent's moral objections stay within the country so that it is judged by the country's individual civil and moral laws.
However, the UN does have the right, and the obligation, to penalize nations that endorse education in violence,hate, and hostility toward another nation, not only on the basis of religion, but nationalist propaganda as well. Therefore, a nation has the right to decide by its own law codes and traditions the material taught in its public schools, as long as this education does not threaten the well-being and security of another nation.
New Babel wrote:The only sensible reason to ban "religion" is if it is violent.
Nicely said, this comment clearly shows the line drawn between national sovereighnty and international security issues. Rethelanuim is willing to accept an amended version of this proposal (since I do not have experience forming a proposal, I'll just give an explanation of it):
Banning government supported religion in schools infringes upon the (hopefully still UN-endorsed) idea of the rights of a country's leader to establish his own government. Such a proposal, in this form, especially overlooks the smaller nations (and the islands) that have one religion, or are unified by a state religion. Furthermore, the UN's concern lies with international security, and as long as religion does not encourage international hostility, the consequences remain for the country's leader to deal with. Teaching a child from an early age about the sinfullness of stealing and murder, for example, clearly does not threaten the safety of UN members, nor does it severely deny the child his/her security. The parent's moral objections stay within the country so that it is judged by the country's individual civil and moral laws.
However, the UN does have the right, and the obligation, to penalize nations that endorse education in violence,hate, and hostility toward another nation, not only on the basis of religion, but nationalist propaganda as well. Therefore, a nation has the right to decide by its own law codes and traditions the material taught in its public schools, as long as this education does not threaten the well-being and security of another nation.