NationStates Jolt Archive

Please approve this motion,It just needs to be passed in order to quell religious tensions
Ban On all religious icons

Ban on all Religious Icons

Category: Moral Decency Strength: Significant

Description: It has been Brought to my attention from the region that I represent that all government related work and public areas should be non-religious.
This would include Headscarves,Crosses,Rosary beeds,Ceremonial Hats and Celtic/Rangers Jersey's. It is hoped that this proposal will ease any Religious attention as no religion will be given preference over the other

Um.
No.
What you may be failing to understand here is that, for many religions, it is an essential part of their religion that they carry its trappings at all times or whenever in public. It's not just an ostentatious display for some people. For a Sikh man or an Islamic woman, wearing the symbols of their faith is a requirement, not an option, of their religion. Many groups consider beards, uncut hair or shaved heads symbols of their faith - are you going to make everyone get a short back and sides? What you'll essentially be doing is banning certain faiths from those areas.
This is gross intolerance masquerading under secularism. As a firmly secular society, we nonetheless acknowledge the vital personal significance of spirituality.

And let's reiterate this: NOT ALL UN STATES ARE SECULAR CAPITALIST DEMOCRACIES. Some are theocracies, for instance, and their halls of government are places of worship. Now how would you work that?

Too many problems.

What if one religion considers pens to be it's sacred icon, will you ban pens from all public places?

We are a Theocracy. So "Them's fightin' Words"!

How about letting people do they want in regards to religion? I know it's a radical idea.. freedom of religion... but it might just work.

Pope Liam the Rich, Pontiff of all Psychotropics and founder of Shambhala

This is just plan stupid. I'm sick of people who have these visions of a "clean" society where no one is offended. Well guess what, people will be offended by any thing. I guarenteei just offended someone. Oh well, screw you. Oopps,, theres another....

King Face

Empire of Bracia

(this is what is pissing me off in real life in America right now)

It is convenient for Sikhs that for religious reasons they are required to carry a dagger.

I have not yet figured out a way to theologically justify carrying my skir dhu.

Nope, sorry. All this secular state shit pisses me off..and as earlier stated, what about Theocratic states? hmm? Your proposal doesnt hold ground, and it just plain stupid.

and what particurlur religion find pens sacred????
The main goal of this proposal is too rid Religious tension in the country,We want to remove religion as a pretence for violence.
ppl can do what the wish in the privacy of their homes and of course in their religious places.

and what particurlur religion find pens sacred????
The main goal of this proposal is too rid Religious tension in the country,We want to remove religion as a pretence for violence.
ppl can do what the wish in the privacy of their homes and of course in their religious places.

and what particurlur religion find pens sacred????
Why does it matter? What if a religion were to come about in the future that worships ink pens?


The main goal of this proposal is too rid Religious tension in the country,We want to remove religion as a pretence for violence.
ppl can do what the wish in the privacy of their homes and of course in their religious places.

What about on other private property? Why do you wish to restrict non-violent expression of beliefs? Are you some sort of fascist commie?

It is convenient for Sikhs that for religious reasons they are required to carry a dagger.

Actually, the kirpan was originally a full-sized sword. In the modern era most Sikhs wear something too tiny to open the average letter with, although it must still cause 'em hell getting on planes.

Are you some sort of fascist commie?

Next on McBain: McBain vs. the CommieNazis!

Eh, good idea but I this would be impossible to enforce. People of the elvish religion find the light of certain stars and broaches in certain shapes to be sacred and holy... IS there any possible way for me to get rid of starlight? And banning broaches? This would seem just a little petty to most people...

Sounds like someone's jumping on the French bandwagon.

http://www.skytowerpoet.net/pics/100_15.gif

The Deadlines of Tuesday Heights (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=skytowerpoet)

yah we all know hes french now, like my guns, if you want my cross come and take it

Anithraldur finds this fascist repression of religious symbols distasteful and appalling. Just another example of near-fundamentalist atheism trying to force itself on everyone in the name of political correctness. Any attempt to "liberate" my nation of its religious symbols of ANY faith, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever, will be met with staunch and utmost resistance, though we will not attack you pre-emptively.

BTW, try and remove (or even hide) THIS. (http://www.paris.org/Monuments/NDame/gifs/notre.dame.jpg) :lol:

-PUPPET OF ARIZONA NOVA

"Yeah, well it's not only icons that need to be banned. What about the propoganda movies such as "The Passion Of Christ", and "Schindlers List" which make out Jesus and the Jews to be victims respectively, although they were just being punished for their crimes. I mean, there isn't actually any proof of either the crucifixion or the holocaust, yet they made Jesus out to be a Martyr, and the Nazi's were made out to be bad guys"

-The Federation of Brenmaher

One of DCU's consorts. Yeah, I'll support the proposal, sure! I'll get right to my UN delegate on it immediatly.

Seriously, this amounts to thought control.
When the state supresses free expression of belief it substitutes its own symbols and values.

What we said the last time this came up (actually I think it was about schools):

‘1) Wearing a ‘religious symbol’ does not force somebody to convert.

2) We should not hide our differences. If a Christian takes off a cross they are still a Christian. Instead we should celebrate our differences and teach children that it is okay to be themselves.

3) Your proposal seams to be blaming the ‘victims’ of bullying instead of the closed-minded bully. Perhaps better education is necessary so these people will understand why people where the symbols of religions.

4) Our country has a strong population of Muslims. If it was a choice between Hijab and school some would choose Hijab. It is part of their religion and identity. It is our policy that unless they are causing considerable damage we would not stop people from getting a good education.’

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Yes,Unfortunately brenmaher is a member of our region and a founding 1 at that!!!!! . He is inept and there was an attempted coup a few days ago. Indecisiveness on the part of fellows countries lead to it's ultimate failure. This proposal was istigated by the Community Of sandel and tomwardia. In exchange for the proposal their support was given to me. So thus I'm carrying out the wishes of my regional nations.

this is a very imporant thing why is there war ?
why is ther fighting in the streets?
why are some nations run by an ego tripping asshole?
i will simply say it is beacause of religion
that all there is to it i am in full support of this bill

Aah, yes because forcing people to remove obvious signs of their faith will make them nice, calm people, who will never fight.

Also: Many of the greatest dictators in modern history are not religious, and could even be called anti-religious. Banning religious insignia will not harm them.

i want to know how this has anything to do with atheism,as a few have said, atheists believe in free speach, banning religious icons is kinda contradictory isnt it?

Atheists do not necessarily believe in free speech. Would you call Stalin, Pol Pot or Mussolini proponents of free speech? They were all atheists.

That said, many atheists do believe in free speech. Just as many theists believe in free speech.

i will simply say it is beacause of religionl

Then you are incredibly ignorant.

this is a very imporant thing why is there war ?
why is ther fighting in the streets?
why are some nations run by an ego tripping asshole?
i will simply say it is beacause of religion
that all there is to it i am in full support of this bill

War? Mostly because of politics.
Fighting in the streets? Usually drugs.
Why are some nations run by ego-tripping ***hole? I don't know. I'm sure if he were alive Stalin or Mao Tse-tung or Hitler, all "enlightened" atheists would all have something to say about that though.
Your last statement? I'm not going to validate its existence with a worthwhile answer.

I don't like this idea, religious icons along with personal religion are just that, personal. I do not support this motion, invasion of privacy.

I look back at the past century and think things through.

Aside from extremist Islamic Jihad, I can think of no wars started by religion.






I look back at the past century and think things through.

I can think of many atrocities. Let's see how many of them were because of religious wars.

None.






I look back at the past century and think things through.

I can think of many atrocities. Let's see how many of them included religious oppression.

The Holocaust.
6 million Jews killed.
Countless homosexuals(not a religion, but still debated along with personal beliefs).
Catholics.
Protestants.
Muslims.
All killed, mostly for religious beliefs.

China.
Since 1999, the following religious groups have faced labor camps, prison time, and, more often than not, death all without trial because of their religion.
Falun Gong
Tibetan Buddhists
Catholics
Protestants
Muslims

I'm short on time, so I must stop at two examples and not even begin to mention the USSR, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.

I'll end with the words of a truly great man who wrote a document you've probably heard of, called the Declaration of Independence.

"We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries." --Thomas Jefferson

I look back at the past century and think things through.

Aside from extremist Islamic Jihad, I can think of no wars started by religion.

I look back at the past century and think things through.

I can think of many atrocities. Let's see how many of them were because of religious wars.

None.

Okay. While we are strongly opposed to the proposal, we can't let unfounded statements like this pass.

In the past century, wars caused by non-Islamic religions include the ultra-Christian LRA's rape, looting and murders in Uganda; the creation of Israel, wherein Judaism must take equal blame with Islam; the Hindu-Buddhist conflict in Sri Lanka; the violence by Hindus as well of Muslims at Partition, and of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs in India therafter; the many civil wars in Africa where paramilitary forces believe their religion (whether Christianity or fetishism) protects them from bullets.

Atrocity-perpetrating religious groups in the past century include Scientology, Aum Shinri Kyo (the Japanese sarin guys), Christian clergy in Rwanda... admittedly, these are relatively small compared to the atheist massacres of fascism and communism, but the more you look the more you find. And the 'this century' division is unfair: Islam has featured more strongly as a religion of violence of late mainly because it's the strongest religion of the age; look back to when Christianity was a vibrant, powerful religion and you'll see religion-motivated crimes by Christians that make 9/11 look like a papercut. Look elsewhere and you'll find even more massive religious crimes. There's nothing special about the modern era that prevents a repeat of that.

Making a distinction between religious and atheistic violence is valid, but really the problem is neither religion nor atheism but absolutism - a feature shared by Nazism, Stalinism, and militant Islam and Christianity. This is not the only source of atrocity - profit is another reliable one - but drawing the line between religion and atheism is bogus.

Since all you religious fundamentalists are getting bothered by a ban on religious symbols, and since you claim that a religion requires maybe a hejab or turban, lets have a look at some other stuff which is legitimised by "Its my culture":
Polygamy, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, punishing women for being raped, unequal rights of ownership, unequal vulnerability to violence between men and women, differential access to health care for men and women.
Most religions are an afront to universally recognised human rights.

Since all you religious fundamentalists are getting bothered by a ban on religious symbols, and since you claim that a religion requires maybe a hejab or turban, lets have a look at some other stuff which is legitimised by "Its my culture":
Polygamy, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, punishing women for being raped, unequal rights of ownership, unequal vulnerability to violence between men and women, differential access to health care for men and women.
Most religions are an afront to universally recognised human rights.

Most, if not all of those actions are illegal in nations. I believe there is an Issue where you can decide whether or not to allow radical religions to practice their sacrificial rituals, etc...this should remain an Issue for individual nations to decide, not the UN. I'm new here, but I've noticed that successful UN bills seem to ADD to rights, not restrict them.
Furthermore, the things you listed were actions and not religious symbols, which is what is being discussed.

I'm new here, but I've noticed that successful UN bills seem to ADD to rights, not restrict them.
Furthermore, the things you listed were actions and not religious symbols, which is what is being discussed.
Human rights? What one political/moral view point/cultural perspective is considered “human rights” is oppression to another. Is it not important to respect a peoples right to self determination.

In addition are not the athiests/anti religion group no less strident in promoting there belief sets as the religous?

IMHO most wars and oppression are committed not by the religous but by those whom hi-jak the faiths as a cover for thier own political objetives.

Since all you religious fundamentalists are getting bothered by a ban on religious symbols, and since you claim that a religion requires maybe a hejab or turban,

First of all, we aren't fundamentalists.
Secondly, no one has claimed that their religion requires a hejab or turban.

lets have a look at some other stuff which is legitimised by "Its my culture":

No one has said "It's my culture," merely that some people belong to religions that require that they do certian things.
For instance, in some forms of Judeism, a woman is supposed to shave her head and wear a wig, because long hair causes men to be lustful. Whether or not you or I agree (which I don't) is up to us. But who am I to say that she can't do as her religion madates? Also, what ever happened to the freedom of religion the Real World Enlightenment thinks would always talk about?

Next comes the fun part.

Polygamy,

There is no religion ANYWHERE that REQUIRES polygamy.
Also, this is an act and a practice, but NOT a symbol or icon.
forced marriage,

Once again, an act, not an icon. I don't know of too many places, certianly none in America, in which this is still practiced.
female genital mutilation,

Very disturbing. I don't know where this happens.
But again, not an Icon; it's an act.
punishing women for being raped,

An act, not an icon. And I'm beggining to think that you're making up religions, as I've never seen this taught by any religion.
unequal rights of ownership,
While some Islamic regimes might enforce this, it is an Act, and not an Icon.
unequal vulnerability to violence between men and women,
I'm not sure what you mean here, but I'm guessing that you mean that some religions seem to tolerate abuse, especially of women.
This isn't taught by religions.
Also, this is an act, and not an Icon.
differential access to health care for men and women.
Most religions are an afront to universally recognised human rights.
I'm out of time, but religions aren't against human rights.
Jefferson said we were all equal because God made us all.
The bell rang, so I'll finish later.