NationStates Jolt Archive

This will be my first proposal. I would appreciate it if nations with more experience will look it over and tell me what they think.

Thank you,

The Communal Leader of Dinner4JC
The Community of Dinner4JC
The Allied States of the Isles

Laissez-Faire Religion in the UN
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: The Community of Dinner4JC

Description: Since my entrance into the United Nations I have seen a number of people suggest legislation that would restrict the religious rights of nations in the UN or require UN countries to have a certain religion.

I suggest that we pass legislation that would prevent such legislation from being put to a vote.

Every nation has a right to choose how they wish to run their country.

They may choose to :
choose what religion would be best for their nation.
choose that religious tolerance would be best for their nation.
choose that a ban on any or all religion in their nation.

Every nation should have the right to religious freedom, or lack there of.

As a non-UN member who has pointed out resolutions that deter the Holy Empire of Grand Hobgoblonia from entering the UN, this is the type of resolution that would attract Grand Hobgoblonia to the UN.

Thank you, that was part of the idea. I have seen a number of people who fear the UN will ruin their nation, and I don't think that is right.

The Communal Leader of Dinner4JC
The Community of Dinner4JC
The Allied States of the Isles

All agreed :!: This is one of the better UN proposals I have seen unlike the current resolution it provides a purpose and gets it done.

They may choose to :
have any form of government they feel will be best.
choose what religion would be best for their nation.
choose that religious tolerance would be best for their nation.
choose that a ban on any or all religion in their nation.

Every nation should have the right to religions and political freedom, or lack there of.

It is my firm belief that religion should play no role whatsoever in pollitics. People should hold true to their own seperate set of beliefs, but it is inhumane to force them upon others. Therefore, I dissaprove of any type of "national religion".

They may choose to :
have any form of government they feel will be best.
choose what religion would be best for their nation.
choose that religious tolerance would be best for their nation.
choose that a ban on any or all religion in their nation.

Every nation should have the right to religions and political freedom, or lack there of.

It is my firm belief that religion should play no role whatsoever in pollitics. People should hold true to their own seperate set of beliefs, but it is inhumane to force them upon others. Therefore, I dissaprove of any type of "national religion".

I knew I left something out. I ment to include that as well. I will add it right away!

Oh it is in there. That is what is ment by this line :

"choose that religious tolerance would be best for their nation."

Is the wording here confusing?

The Communal Leader of Dinner4JC
The Community of Dinner4JC
The Allied States of the Isles

Hmm. This proposal's heart is in the right place, but I think it would have to account for previous UN resolutions such as Citizen Rule Required. (Remember, you can't repeal UN resolutions).

In any case, the issue of government choice is already adequately covered in The Rights and Duties of UN States (in your face, BAN COMMUNISM):

Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

So that reduces the scope of your proposal to matters religious. We'd appreciate a resolution on religious freedoms of states, provided that 'religious tolerance' wasn't strengthened so that it allowed nations to effectively breach UN resolutions in the name of religious independence. I'm thinking in particular of the various gay rights proposals; an extremist Christian, Islamic, Rastafarian (or whatever) nation would be likely to say 'that violates my right to run my nation's religious affairs as I please', which would effectively contradict existing resolutions. Which you're not allowed to do. Had this proposal been suggested before such resolutions, it might be a different story.

Very well put and seems to me that it should be a commom sense issue and not a political issue. But obviously if nations are attempting to restrict religious influence within the political environment, I say "Good Luck". Religion is the basis for many political movements, beliefs, and legal systems.

Oh it is in there. That is what is ment by this line :

"choose that religious tolerance would be best for their nation."

Is the wording here confusing?

The Communal Leader of Dinner4JC
The Community of Dinner4JC
The Allied States of the Isles

That wording implies that I could choose to have no religous tolerance in my nation ((which for my government no religous tolerance would be to simply ban all religions except atheism, which really isn't a religion...))...

I would also like to point out that this resolution as worded seems to promote the idea of having a singular unity representing both the church and state, and therefore not likely to gain support of hte socialist majority of the United Nations.

Hmm. This proposal's heart is in the right place, but I think it would have to account for previous UN resolutions such as Citizen Rule Required. (Remember, you can't repeal UN resolutions).

In any case, the issue of government choice is already adequately covered in The Rights and Duties of UN States (in your face, BAN COMMUNISM):

Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

So that reduces the scope of your proposal to matters religious. We'd appreciate a resolution on religious freedoms of states, provided that 'religious tolerance' wasn't strengthened so that it allowed nations to effectively breach UN resolutions in the name of religious independence. I'm thinking in particular of the various gay rights proposals; an extremist Christian, Islamic, Rastafarian (or whatever) nation would be likely to say 'that violates my right to run my nation's religious affairs as I please', which would effectively contradict existing resolutions. Which you're not allowed to do. Had this proposal been suggested before such resolutions, it might be a different story.

Noted. I will edit it to only take into account religion.

That wording implies that I could choose to have no religous tolerance in my nation ((which for my government no religous tolerance would be to simply ban all religions except atheism, which really isn't a religion...))...

I would also like to point out that this resolution as worded seems to promote the idea of having a singular unity representing both the church and state, and therefore not likely to gain support of hte socialist majority of the United Nations.

It is not ment to support a unified church and state. I myself am againist such a thing. Would you please point out what makes you feel it emphasizes this?

I have submitted my proposal. If you are a UN Delegate who supports my proposal please approve it.

Thank you,

The Communal Leader of Dinner4JC
The Community of Dinner4JC
The Allied States of the Isles

They may choose to :
choose what religion would be best for their nation.
choose that religious tolerance would be best for their nation.

I think this should be reworded "that religious tolerance" to "what religious tolerance,"

choose that a ban on any or all religion in their nation.

Every nation should have the right to religious freedom, or lack there of.
I think this implies that a national religion is also acceptable, and I agree. Some nations will want a national religion, and they do not have to be imposed on other nations. Saying that a nation can have a total ban on religion and not have a national religion is hypocritical, in a sense atheism is a religion, and so might Communism be, or rational science, or whatever.

Grand Hobgoblonia will not support this resolution without total freedom of every sovreign nation to make their own determination on what type of religious freedom or lack thereof, as stated above, is included.

Grand Hobgoblonia will not support this resolution without total freedom of every sovreign nation to make their own determination on what type of religious freedom or lack thereof, as stated above, is included.

That is what the proposal is.

***EDIT: Double Post***

Well it's a bit late now to do this but I had numerous things to say that I will anyway ((as well as answer your previous question although the honorable Grand Hobgoblonia already did in essence)). First off, let me completely disqualify myself by saying I am not a delegate ((but I have been around long enough to have more than 2.5 billion pop)).


Laissez-Faire Religion in the UN
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: The Community of Dinner4JC

Description: Since my entrance into the United Nations I have seen a number of people suggest legislation that would restrict the religious rights of nations in the UN or require UN countries to have a certain religion.

I suggest that we pass legislation that would prevent such legislation from being put to a vote.

I completely agree with this idea however I'm not sure how this resolution could seek to accomplish that...



Every nation has a right to choose how they wish to run their country.

You might should note that this right only extends as far as international law doesn't restrict it... Which all UN resolutions pretty much do...


They may choose to :
choose what religion would be best for their nation.
choose that religious tolerance would be best for their nation.
choose that a ban on any or all religion in their nation.

I refer you to previous resolution "Universal Bill of Rights" article 1

All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

In accordance with this resolution a UN member does not have the right to ban a religion, therefore the third operative clause is invalid. This also means that a country has at least some form of religious tolerance in their nation. Also proposal religious tolerance supports religous diversity and requires UN nations to further the goals of religous tolerance... This seems contradicted by your second operative clause.

Your first operative clause isn't neccissarily contradicted by existing law but in my opinion it would support the union of church and state, something that I can not support.


Every nation should have the right to religious freedom, or lack there of.



I won't repeat my objections to that statement again...

Anyway, I have one more suggestion, I may have misinterpreted your meaning in places and if I did I am sorry... I might suggest that for future proposals you write them in UN proposal format as well before submitting it.

OOC: I'm sorry it took so long to reply, my computer was being assinine...

Anyway, I have one more suggestion, I may have misinterpreted your meaning in places and if I did I am sorry... I might suggest that for future proposals you write them in UN proposal format as well before submitting it.


I did actually. You just didn't see it while it was in rough draft phase.

Ping, also this ignores the facct there are already a multitude of N.S. issues which give governments power over religion and such, and really, how could one of those dumb "Lets ban christianity or some other religion" things really pass?

I say the U.N. should just keep out of religion as religion should keep out of the U.N.

- The Rep of Komokom.

The Flying Lizard of Doom agrees with you.

"I say the U.N. should just keep out of religion as religion should keep out of the U.N.

- The Rep of Komokom."

That's what this proposal is ment to accomplish. Laissez-Faire means "let live" or let it be. The idea is exactly as you stated above. It seems to me that you should be all for this.

BTW for those who would like to see this go to a vote. Encourage all delegates you know to at least look at this issue. Currently : Lacking Support (requires 125 more approvals)

The Communal Leader of Dinner4JC
The Community of Dinner4JC
The Allied States of the Isles

Update : Lacking Support (requires 121 more approvals)

"I say the U.N. should just keep out of religion as religion should keep out of the U.N.

- The Rep of Komokom."

Is what I said, and I meant it all inclusively, which means no proposals even going near religion, no citing the bible to say why your right, and equally no saying we should all end intolerance to it, after all, would this not mean a nation could not be biased towards a religion, like the notable "Islamic" nations which clatter about just as much as those "christian" ones?

Just curious, I am an athiest, as in my nation, but I am raising this question on a note of interest for those it may effect, I know what you mean by intolerance I think, but what about the bias a government may show to one religion over the other, that it seems to me to be a "form" of "intolerance" to religion.

Oh yes, and your proposal seems to rather be more talk rather then walk, but thats just my interpretation, seems your saying "Its so naughty" rather then getting onto the "Lets smack its botty" bit, which is equally all important...

In conclusion, I approve of what your trying to do, kinda, but not the way you've gone about it, also, lets just ignore the multitude of N.S. issues which deal with religious issues, one of which if I remember involves executing cult leaders who've led human sacrifice cermonies...

Nice talking to you, :)

- The Rep of Komokom.