NationStates Jolt Archive

Ladies, gentlemen, and those who could, quite frankly not give a fluffy white rabbit either way, :wink:

I, The Rep of Komokom, may not be able to access the wonder of N.S. for a few days, so time for a social experiment till I return !

(That and with few U.N. proposals looking like they'll reach quorum any time soon...)

Q's : Should we in future engage in seperation of religion and U.N. ?

Either way... If so, on what grounds, or not?

Interpret it how you will !

Whats your say ! ? ! ? !

And with that,

Let The Show Begin !

- The Rep of Komokom, champion of gay rights, openly athiest, and doing this... well, becuase its good to debate in a civil and educated fashion, so a good day to you all !

Bahgum feels that the UN has no place in dictating religious issues of any kind to any nation. If a nation wishes to allow people to worship the Moon, God, Vishnu, the Devil, trees, Britney Spears, rifles, football, ancient norse gods etc....then that is their right. If this religion controls who marries what, then that too is a ntional issue.
Religion should only become of interest to the UN by the actions of its believers. e.g. if a group of one religion declares holy war on another nation, invades a region to religious difference, wages a terror campaign with religious backing or inflicts mass human right violations....then it becomes a World issue and therefore a UN issue. Any resolution to the UN in this area should reflect this.

I am required, by my Government, to say that the Nation of Albione, having various factions, both religious and atheistic, feels that spiritual and secular law should be strictly separate, with the exception that in matters of law, secular law should enjoy ascendency, whilst in matters of concience or morality, spiritual law should hold sway.

Whilst we hold these values dear, we do not feel it the right of any country, or group of countries, to interfere in the beliefs or unbeliefs of any person, group, or nation.

Historically, any attempt to eradicate religious beliefs by passing laws and decrees has met with failure. It therefore is a complete waste of the UN as a useful organisation to devote its time and resources to attempt to pass legislation *of any kind* which limits or curtails the freedom of the individual in their choice of belief or unbelief.

The UN should embrace no religion, period. The only time that religion should even be a concern to the UN, is if and when a religion is violating human rights. Self flagelation, fasting, etc is outside the scope of UN consideration, however, some aspects of religious law fall within UN purview. (for instance, the stoning to death of adulterers in some few nations, or witch hunts in others)

We agree - religion is not an international issue in itself. Ecopoeia has no state religion and we feel it is not for us to interfere in our citizens' spiritual beliefs.

Hiroko Ai
Speaker for Spirituality

I am required, by my Government, to say that the Nation of Albione, having various factions, both religious and atheistic, feels that spiritual and secular law should be strictly separate, with the exception that in matters of law, secular law should enjoy ascendency, whilst in matters of concience or morality, spiritual law should hold sway.

Whilst we hold these values dear, we do not feel it the right of any country, or group of countries, to interfere in the beliefs or unbeliefs of any person, group, or nation.

Historically, any attempt to eradicate religious beliefs by passing laws and decrees has met with failure. It therefore is a complete waste of the UN as a useful organisation to devote its time and resources to attempt to pass legislation *of any kind* which limits or curtails the freedom of the individual in their choice of belief or unbelief.

Seperation of state and church best idea ever put into practice. although i believe it doesnt hurt to have a little bit of spirituality in government. citizens look on it as if they arent completly lying politicans

We in Megus Dominion to not belong to the UN for the simple reason that we do not wish to be told what to do by other countries, but i felt on this issue I must have my voice heard.
If it is the UN's place to interfere when religion violates human rights practices, would it also not be the UNs place to interfere when a member nation oppresses its own people by forcing church attendance, or mandating ANY type of official religion?
we thank you for you time

somethings, like type of government, as long as it isnt inhumane, ie saddam hussein wiping out kurds in his own country, is fairly legal. forcing someone to go to church isnt neccessarily inhumane, personally i believe it violates civil rights but hey im trying to get support for banning 3rd trimester abortion check out the proposal under the self titled thread 1st proposal is original draft, 2nd is the revised version, ive edited a couple times now.

again plugging my proposal in the works. ill taylor it just about anyway to get it passed as long as it doesnt violate what our country wants to propose.

[quote=again plugging my proposal in the works. ill taylor it just about anyway to get it passed as long as it doesnt violate what our country wants to propose.[/quote]

Is it any wonder i despise politicians? :x

im having fun with this, and its the only way to get attention to my draft. my last proposal didnt get enough votes, because i feel not enough people saw it or heard it, i hardly received a negative response about.

We in Megus Dominion to not belong to the UN for the simple reason that we do not wish to be told what to do by other countries, but i felt on this issue I must have my voice heard.
If it is the UN's place to interfere when religion violates human rights practices, would it also not be the UNs place to interfere when a member nation oppresses its own people by forcing church attendance, or mandating ANY type of official religion?
we thank you for you time

Nope. See Ukroatia's comment. If a citizen doesn't want to go to church, he might consider immigrating. Some of the more bizzare customs that violate a person's most basic human rights should be quashed though.

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint believes that the United Nations should not in any way deal with any resolution that addresses an individual nation's rights or responsibilities in dealing with religion within its own borders.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

The UN at times seem to be controlled by a 3 year old child, who has a short attention span. But we won't get into that...

The UN shouldn't deal with the issue of Seperation of Church and State. Besides the fact that, the only true meaning of that statement is no main religion that allows no other. America is best example of how to go about it, God is in the Constitution and the Govt but no exact religion is worshipped, just Heavenly Father in general.

America is best example of how to go about it, God is in the Constitution and the Govt but no exact religion is worshipped, just Heavenly Father in general.

Which is inclusive of Jews, Christians and Muslims, but excludes Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, polytheists, and atheists.

In Rehochipe we consider religion a state priority but make no reference to any deity in our constitution or laws (we don't think religion should have anything to do with politics). We teach all religions, together with critical philosophy, by mandate in our schools (we think spirituality is an important part of human development) but tax religious organisations as if they were businesses (we don't think religion should have anything to do with money). And we tend to come down quite hard on religious hatred.

Thackeray Sung
Ministry of Personal Development

"In some nations spirituality is present and cannot be denied. In others it has little effect whatsoever. Phillipsania prides herself on the basis that all groups can worship freely. It is just a well known fact that members of the clergy do take part in our government's affairs, as well they should, being a representative of a great portion of society. For the UN to interfere in a sovereign nation's matters in such a way can be deemed as reckless."

Arcbishop Pares
Excerpt
from Speech Before a General Meeting of the Estates General
Kingdom of Phillipsania

Just thought I'd pop in and see how opinions are progressing, and I am glad to see 15 posts popping up in such a short time, many of them making great points and arguments.

Personally, Komokom's government is completely Athiest, and gives no religion acting within it borders any greater sway then any other, in order to assist the basic equality, that the people may choose their beliefs. This means that rather then turn to a church for an answer regarding an issue, we revert rather to dedicated reaserch think tanks to formulate new policy, thus ensuring all people benefit at the end of the day, rather than a selected component of our diverse culture.

We too feel strongly that no interactions should involve both church and U.N. whether it be a proposal to end religious practices, or one which stippulates a certain religious view when dealing with a moral/ethical decision. Ultimately we feel that such involvement would be detrimental to the stability of the U.N. and its members, and that,

Ultimately,

While there may be a god, gods, or something else beyond our comprehension,

Or maybe even nothing,

For now, it is people who decide the path of the U.N. and as such the path they themselves take from this forum, to other web pages, off their computer, and on into what ever the path leads them to,

I hope this debate/discussion will continue well into the week, and we will all learn from it. With this, I leave you for now with this quote, and wish you a nice day, 'lest you have other plans. :wink:

"If God had wanted me otherwise, He would have created me otherwise."

- Johann von Goethe.

- The Rep of Komokom. :wink:

America is best example of how to go about it, God is in the Constitution and the Govt but no exact religion is worshipped, just Heavenly Father in general.

The United States Constitution is completely God=less. The common used indicator by religious conservative of it saying "year of Our Lord"...that was a common practice then (similar to Japanese custom of the era and year e.g. 2004-Heisi 16 or in the UK Parliament Elizabeth II 53 since 6 Feb.)
The usage of the term "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence comes from showing that in their opinion (the Americans) George III had no divine right to rule (the divine right of Kings still being a common idea.).
Heain-Edo has a very rigorous seperation of Church and State.

"Yes, I agree with the aforementioned. The idea of associating the will of God with the people was a new concept which would flower in the later French Revolution. If anything, the mentioning of God in the United States Constitution reflects a seperation of church and state from the traditional European sense of the "Divine Right Monarchy." If America had truely promoted a state where religion was involved in the government, it would be the beliefs of Bishop Bosseut in the Preamble and not John Locke"

im having fun with this, and its the only way to get attention to my draft. my last proposal didnt get enough votes, because i feel not enough people saw it or heard it, i hardly received a negative response about.

Heh heh heh, Ironically, I'd normally get a 0.1 of 10 on the ping'd'off'o'meter, but I will probably be doing the same thing soon! :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, who when he last checked did not think this proposal to bad...

We have the view that the Untied Nations should not get involved with religion, unless, as others have stated so eloquently above, the religion becomes involved with the Untied Nations. Within Enn, there is no state religion, unless you count the awe that many Ennish hold the council members in.

Just thought we'd have our say.

Hannah and Stephanie, for Enn.

America is best example of how to go about it, God is in the Constitution and the Govt but no exact religion is worshipped, just Heavenly Father in general.

The usage of the term "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence comes from showing that in their opinion (the Americans) George III had no divine right to rule (the divine right of Kings still being a common idea.).
.

Sorry, but I think you'll find that George III claimed no 'Divine Right' to rule, this ended with the regicide of Charles I. However, the early puritan settlers carried the distrust of 'Divine Right' with them, and this was reinforced during the Restoration, when many more fled to America. It has been postulated that the War of Independence, and even the American Civil War were actually continuations of the English Civil War.

Being a humble representative for the people of Dhena, I must agree with those who see no need (or even just cause) for the UN to interfere in any way with the religious practices of individual states.

The UN shouldn't interfere with religious types, though i'm fairly sure that the religious types will still keep pushing their superstitions onto the UN.....

I would have to agree with bahgum. The U.N. has gone to far when it begins to dictate what a country believes in. I request that no one put this as a proposal because that is when you are gonna see alot of people pull out of the U.N.

the UN should only intervene in a nations's religious matters if a certain religion violates fundamental principles of humanity or international humanitarian laws. We all know that if left unsupervised, religious extremists may rise to threaten freedom and peace throughout the world.

I read it as Disestablishment of Religion (i.e. NO State Religions/Theocracies).
Religion and Nationalism are the deadliest mix imagineable.