NationStates Jolt Archive

Your support for this proposal would be most appreciated.
(I have improved specificity from my previous proposals on other subjects.)

Conscription of Religious
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Sanctavia
Description: Historically, there has been a conflict with the state's desire for conscription and an individual's desire to give their life to God. This issue first came to the world stage upon the conversion of the Roman Empire, most notably when that most famous of French Monks, St. Martin of Tours defied the Emperor Justinian the Apostate. The right of a person to serve in the Army of the Lord should be respected.

Resolution:
1) All seminarians, priests, monks, ministers, rabbis, or religious equivalent shall be exempt from military conscription if they so choose.

2) If the individual decides not to pursue this life, he must present himself for military service (in those countries which demand it) with 1 month.

3) The government shall, after one years time, inspect to see if this person is indeed leading a life of religious service.

4) If the individual is not in compliance with his declared way of life, and is thus only trying to avoid conscription, he shall be sentenced as the UN member nations shall see fit, but punishment shall not exceed 10 years imprisonment.

I'm sorry, but this proposal is just unfair. It is the government's job and policy to bring into action any restriction or conscription to the people, and if it conflicts with their religion, too bad! Most good governments should've outlawed religion and nationalised media anyway! Religion has no place in the modern world and certainly the way a particular nation handles religion and its more-often-than-not bloody consequences is not the business of the United Nations!

This is too broad. Once again, there are too many nations that draw a line between church and state. Passing this would clearly bind every nation's government with religion. Not to mention that every military needs every man they can get, and to give a religious figure the same rights as a man who had both his shins blown off does not seem fair.

I totally agree with this mesage becasue it's against their religion to promote violence which is what they military does. they go out and fight for their country. if it's against your religion, then you don't have be drafted.

I support this

So, by logic, because they're a priest or the equivalent thereof he gets special treatment? Why stop there! How about we just not let anyone that believes in peace be drafted!

If this is a peace issue, we all know that it's never going to happen. If this is a religious issue, there's more than just one religion, not all of them believe in peace. This is punishing aetheists and people who know that action needs to be taken in order to defend a nation. This will only stir up more problems between peace hopefuls and people that live in the real world.

I read this and realised where it was wrong. It should be the other way around..anyone who signs up to a religion should be signed up for the army. Remember, in all wars God, Allah, Siva, Vishnu, Mars, your local pine tree etc are always on YOUR nations side, it's blasphemy not to fight for your country! Strike down the unbelievers, tear apart the infidels you know it makes sense.

Sir Albert Threllfall, Ambassador to Bahgum

3) The government shall, after one years time, inspect to see if this person is indeed leading a life of religious service.
"Good day, Brother Sanctiva. I'm your government Religion inspector. We'll just be checking a few things today to see if you qualify as Properly religious. It won't take long."

* checks lockers, runs white glove over sills and furniture *

"Hmm, no snakes in the locker. Regulation 324b, Subsection C12 requires all religious types to handle snakes. Also, I only saw a cross and a rosary in there. The Frisbeeterian Religious Equality Act requires you to wear a yarmulke and burkha, and carry a ceremonial dagger at all times, especailly while tending your mandatory Zen garden. I'm afraid we're going to have to give you a down-check."

"Sergeant, issue this man his AK and let's move on to the next monastary."
--------------------
Is this what you want, Sanctiva? How about letting the individual nations decide what THEY want to do with their own religious types, instead of mandating some easily abused government intrusion into religious life?

We support this proposal, NOT because we believe religious people should have more rights than anyone else, BUT because it would reduce the number of people subjected to slavery under the yoke of government and ultimately pave the way to the abolition of conscription, forced labor, and other forms of state-slavery.

This is too broad. Once again, there are too many nations that draw a line between church and state. Passing this would clearly bind every nation's government with religion. Not to mention that every military needs every man they can get, and to give a religious figure the same rights as a man who had both his shins blown off does not seem fair.

I need every man I can get too. Hey what do you say I come over to your house with a gun and force you to work for me?

This is too broad. Once again, there are too many nations that draw a line between church and state. Passing this would clearly bind every nation's government with religion. Not to mention that every military needs every man they can get, and to give a religious figure the same rights as a man who had both his shins blown off does not seem fair.

I need every man I can get too. Hey what do you say I come over to your house with a gun and force you to work for me?

Frisbeeteria, it isn't much different from umpteen hundred things that the US government checks to ensure that is true.

Besides, aren't you the one that makes the laws in your own nation? You can only harass your own citizens, which you can frankly do anyway with or without this resolution. No resolution can protect you from yourself.

ultimately pave the way to the abolition of conscription, forced labor, and other forms of state-slavery.
TGM, I thought that you would reject this bill based on Article 3, where a govenrment agent is appointed to decide if a person is sufficiently religious. That seems a pretty severe inposition of government into religion to me.

The REP's current national religion requires by scripture its adherents to serve in the military. Even non-state sponsored religious peolpe are not exempt from such requirements. Whatever a religious person might want, while he is a citizen of any country his responsibility is to his country as well as his god. If he were to object, the solution would be to leave society all together and live on a cloud. While they remain as part of a country, using its healthcare, protected by its laws, there is no reason at all for them not to defend it in time of need, save cowardice.

NB: we use the term 'man' to represent a member of mankind, dont want this discussion taken over by femenists. :wink:

Look, i've stated this earlier. There is NO conflict between being religious and fighting for your country, as your leader will always confirm that your particular god is on your nations side. Besides what is better for an army than a horde of religious fanatics?

Frisbeeteria, it isn't much different from umpteen hundred things that the US government checks to ensure that is true.

Besides, aren't you the one that makes the laws in your own nation? You can only harass your own citizens, which you can frankly do anyway with or without this resolution. No resolution can protect you from yourself.
Thanks for making my point for me. Yes, I make the laws in my country. Why are you trying to impose this one on me? It's neither relevant nor appropriate for Frisbeeteria, as we don't recognize clergy as a special class of citizen-employees.

We really wish you would back off on using the UN as a platform for religion-based special treatment legislation. It's not their job.

The best defense is a good offense, and if my UN member nations must suffer these resolutions on Prostitution and the like, we will try to pass some fo what we deem to be positive legislation in the way of rights which should be universally recognized.

This is too broad. Once again, there are too many nations that draw a line between church and state. Passing this would clearly bind every nation's government with religion. Not to mention that every military needs every man they can get, and to give a religious figure the same rights as a man who had both his shins blown off does not seem fair.

I need every man I can get too. Hey what do you say I come over to your house with a gun and force you to work for me?

Or we could just, you know, let everyone that worships peace not fight.

The best defense is a good offense, and if my UN member nations must suffer these resolutions on Prostitution and the like, we will try to pass some fo what we deem to be positive legislation in the way of rights which should be universally recognized.
Then your view is that "to combat intrusive legislation that earns the rightful wrath of the UN" , you propose "more intrusive legislation that will earn the rightful wrath of the UN"?

Your logic, like your agenda, continues to evade me. It smacks of, "Oh, yeah? Well so's your mamma!" You're not earning my respect, just the same disdain I have for the leftist silliness.

Try again, please.

We have compulsory military service and if a person believes in God we feel he should be more willing to serve in the military, not exempt from it.

Why don't you rewrite and submit it as an ISSUE? This does not belong in the UN. It has nothing to do with international relations.

~ cq