NationStates Jolt Archive

The new proposal has been entered. Support it in the UN proposal listings.

How about some details here in the forum, for the benefit of us lazy types? :)

Thats nice dear, what proposal,?

I don't remember seeing it here before, did you request a mod to look it over? Did you post it here for open discussion? Could you at least post a nice copy of it here?

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

Freedom of and from religion
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Newtonstein

Description: Whereas most nations allow freedom of religion within their borders, this resolution also agrees to allow citizens freedom FROM religion. Understanding the absurdity of the "you have to join one of the clubs" mentality, citizens shall the right to live free of the labels of religions.


Enh.

Freedom of and from religion
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Newtonstein

Description: Whereas most nations allow freedom of religion within their borders, this resolution also agrees to allow citizens freedom FROM religion. Understanding the absurdity of the "you have to join one of the clubs" mentality, citizens shall the right to live free of the labels of religions.



Newt , dear, I'm form your reasona and endorese you and all but I expected a better job of writing...

Anyway let's see what I can spot that is not good without help form the honorable Komokom, supreme wielder of the frying pans. First off, the freedom of religion is protected in ALL UN member states, under previous resolution Universal Bill of rights. Next, your proposal is in the wrong order, I would use your last sentence as a preambulatory clause. Also your enacting clause is rather weak and not well worded. I'll propose how to possibly reword this in a minute. Also, something I just noted, your enacting clause seems split into two parts that essentially say the same thing, although one is at the end of what hsould be a preambulatory clause.

Now what is good:

This is definately an idea I support, the previous resolution specifically gives the right to worship ANY religion but does not expressely proteect the right to practice NO religion. I think this could be a critical piece of legislature in that regard. I also like oyur usign hte word citizen rather than human being or human. It has been noted by several previous delegates that not all the citizens of this world are neccissarily human. Nice job in that respect.

O.K. Now I promised I would give a possible reworking of the resolution, I know it's a bit late for this but maybe on a resubmit you could take it into account


Freedom of and from religion
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Description: Noting with great joy, that the United Nations has passed previous resolutions, namely Religious Tolerance and the Universal Bill of Rights, to expand religious diversity and tolerance among constituent members.

Noting with great concern, that the previous resolutions do not specifically protect the right to not belogn to a religious group.

Understanding, that the thought that one must belogn to a religion to be productive is both degrading and absurd.

The Federation of Newtonstein hereby:

Propose, that the United Nations specifically protect the right of the citizens of member states to choose to not practice a religion.


Requests, that this resolution may not be used as groudns for not enforcing previous reoslutions but simply be a further step forward in the direction of universal tolerance and freedom among UN emmber states



Grant I'm not nearly as eloquent as Komokom, international polotics not beign my strongest point nor neccissarily UN proposal format. And like I said, it's really too late for this but if you ever do a resubmit....

I feel so loved, :D

Actually, its a darn'd good modification Caras Galadon, and all I've done in the one below is run it through a spell checker and change a few things, but on the whole it was near perfect for the job.

"Freedom of and from religion"

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Description:

Recognising, that the United Nations has passed previous resolutions, namely Religious Tolerance and the Universal Bill of Rights, as well as Freedom of Choice, to expand religious diversity and tolerance among constituent members, as well as the right to individuality and equality and the recognised freedom of choice that all citiens of U.N. member states have.

Noting with great concern, that the previous resolutions do not specifically protect the right to not belong to a religious group.

Understanding, that the thought that one must belong to a religion to be productive and / or accepted is both degrading to the citizen and absurd.

The Federation of Newtonstein hereby:

Propose, that the United Nations specifically protects the right of the citizens of member states to choose to not practice a religion. This is an act to be confirmed with the passing of this proposal into an U.N. enfored resolution.

And,

Formally affirms, that this resolution may not be used as grounds for not enforcing previous resolutions but simply be a further step forward in the direction of universal tolerance, equality and freedom among UN member states.

And thats about it other-wise.

- The Rep of Komokom.

I was in a hurry. I promise to write more eloquently in the future. :)

horrible resolution

horrible resolution
Would you care to elaborate a bit more? It's difficult to consider the cons if you don't describe them.

Thank you,

g.e.
Speaker for the Jovian Worlds

A fine and noble attempt, but unfortunately.. poorly worded. The venom in the following section : "Understanding the absurdity of the "you have to join one of the clubs" mentality, citizens shall the right to live free of the labels of religions." is unnecessary. Your point could be made without actually trying to insult that which is dear to the majority of humans.


I agree in totality with the concept... but would never vote to affirm a resolution which also carries an insult. Remove the venom, and we will endorse.

Excuse me Psychotropics, but where is the insult, in my experiance, many people have felt the "need to join one of the clubs" mentality, and sadly many find they cannot resist if they are to progress as they wish too. And I might I add live in quite a free and liberal country. I find it a perfectly exact and valid expression of what I would think is a problem faced by religion and society, to the detriment of both. And now we've a golden opportunity here to solve it.

If anything, religions should be glad it is openly expressed like this, with no vague wording, I am sorry, but I see no reason why it should need cotton-wooling for the religions.

But thats just me (shrugs) :)

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

We are inclined to agree that 'degrading and absurd' is a little strong. The content may be correct but it could be phrased in a far less combative way without losing any of said content. Rehochipe is a society that treasures its religions, and we'd rather that the legitimate cause of secularism didn't get enmeshed with the illegitimate one of aggressively evangelical atheism.

And calling it "the 'you have to join one of the clubs' mentality" is not exactly the kind of language we'd expect of a UN resolution - we'd prefer it to be called 'mandatory sectarianism' or something similar.

Thackeray Sung
Ministry of Personal Development

I see your point, maybe mandatory sectarianism would be better, still, I do in part still stand by my earlier comment.

:)

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

Excuse me Psychotropics, but where is the insult, in my experiance, many people have felt the "need to join one of the clubs" mentality, and sadly many find they cannot resist if they are to progress as they wish too. And I might I add live in quite a free and liberal country. I find it a perfectly exact and valid expression of what I would think is a problem faced by religion and society, to the detriment of both. And now we've a golden opportunity here to solve it.

If anything, religions should be glad it is openly expressed like this, with no vague wording, I am sorry, but I see no reason why it should need cotton-wooling for the religions.

But thats just me (shrugs) :)

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

It's implying that people who are religious have made an absurd decision.

It's implying that people who are religious have made an absurd decision.

Actually, I'll help in part field this one. The actual wording is
either


Understanding the absurdity of the "you have to join one of the clubs" mentality(Original)

Understanding, that the thought that one must belong to a religion to be productive and / or accepted is both degrading to the citizen and absurd. (Komokom/Myself)



To me this reading implies that the idea that you MUST join a religion is absurd and degrading to one who does not wish to join a religion ((although I agree with "you have to join one of the clubs" as hardly being proper UN format)). Which in my opinion, being one of those people I feel qualified to comment, it is not really degrading , but most definately absurd and ridiculous, although I can see this could possibly inflame some of hte more, erm, evangelistical/conservative religious people.

With that perhaps a more suitable wording for the representative of Psychotropics would perhaps be


Understanding, that the concept of mandadory sectarianism- the forcing of an individual to belong to a religious group against their wishes- is wrong and the idea behind it false.

Yes.... there are numerous ways to write this fine concept without being rude :)

I support the idea absolutely.... I just do not like the elitist way in which it was written.

I'm not really sure if I see a reference to "one of the clubs" as elitist; it just signifies that non-religious people feel forced to follow a religion. I'm not a delegate but put me down in favor of this resolution.

-His Imperial Majesty the Most Revered One of Krygillia

I'm not really sure if I see a reference to "one of the clubs" as elitist; it just signifies that non-religious people feel forced to follow a religion. I'm not a delegate but put me down in favor of this resolution.

-His Imperial Majesty the Most Revered One of Krygillia

I'm not really sure if I see a reference to "one of the clubs" as elitist; it just signifies that non-religious people feel forced to follow a religion. I'm not a delegate but put me down in favor of this resolution.

-His Imperial Majesty the Most Revered One of Krygillia

I'm not really sure if I see a reference to "one of the clubs" as elitist; it just signifies that non-religious people feel forced to follow a religion. I'm not a delegate but put me down in favor of this resolution.

-His Imperial Majesty the Most Revered One of Krygillia

Krygilia, lift your finger OFF the transmit button, if you please !

:wink:

I agree with you though, by the way. :)

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

Sorry about that; my computer was acting weird.
:oops: 8)

-HIM the Most Revered One of Krygillia

my only issue is just one line, which many have had an issue with:

Understanding, that the thought that one must belong to a religion to be productive and / or accepted is both degrading to the citizen and absurd.

While it's true, I haven't ever, in my experience, seen this in practice. I've never seen a person shun someone else for not having a religion. I'm a very devoted Christian, but I have many friends who are athiests, Islamic, or just not even slightly religious. I've got friends who do things I'm completely against, such as practicing homosexuality (that's wierd wording for it, but you get the point).

I'm not saying this to say "good for me," I'm just saying that in my experience, I've never really seen someone getting pressured to join a religion. Then again, I've never been to a fundamentalist nation.

I'm very much for the right to not believe anything at all. I've always believed that religion should be a personal choice.

I know that this was a re-write, but to get more support from the right-wingers like me, you might want to put in something more like:

"Understanding, that the thought that one must belong to a religion, to be productive and / or accepted is both degrading to the citizen and absurd, and that in SOME nations, there is pressure from the government to join a certian religion."

Other than that, I think it's a great idea. Also, I would be a bit concerned over this being used as a platform for ideas such as "banning religious icons." Some protection against that would be nice.

A good idea might be to send me the semi-final draft before submiting it to get the idea of a person who holds their religion very dearly. Just send me a telegram, as I would be more than happy to see a great idea such as this be realized, and wouldn't want a small issue over wording to keep it from passing.

Best of luck,
Cool dude from Aeolian

my only issue is just one line, which many have had an issue with:

Understanding, that the thought that one must belong to a religion to be productive and / or accepted is both degrading to the citizen and absurd.

While it's true, I haven't ever, in my experience, seen this in practice. I've never seen a person shun someone else for not having a religion. I'm a very devoted Christian, but I have many friends who are athiests, Islamic, or just not even slightly religious. I've got friends who do things I'm completely against, such as practicing homosexuality (that's wierd wording for it, but you get the point).

I'm not saying this to say "good for me," I'm just saying that in my experience, I've never really seen someone getting pressured to join a religion. Then again, I've never been to a fundamentalist nation.

I'm very much for the right to not believe anything at all. I've always believed that religion should be a personal choice.

I know that this was a re-write, but to get more support from the right-wingers like me, you might want to put in something more like:

"Understanding, that the thought that one must belong to a religion, to be productive and / or accepted is both degrading to the citizen and absurd, and that in SOME nations, there is pressure from the government to join a certian religion."

Other than that, I think it's a great idea. Also, I would be a bit concerned over this being used as a platform for ideas such as "banning religious icons." Some protection against that would be nice.

A good idea might be to send me the semi-final draft before submiting it to get the idea of a person who holds their religion very dearly. Just send me a telegram, as I would be more than happy to see a great idea such as this be realized, and wouldn't want a small issue over wording to keep it from passing.

Best of luck,
Cool dude from Aeolian