NationStates Jolt Archive

The Presbyterian Episcopates of Arx Angelus, recognizing the need for further protection of religious rights, brings this resolution to the floor:

CATEGORY: Human Rights
NAME: Freedom of Religous Expression [Act]
STRENGTH: Signifigant


The NationStates United Nations,

-RECOGNIZING that there are many faiths sincerely followed throughout the world.

-OBSERVING that many individuals have desire to express their faith publicly.

-IS DEEPLY DISTURBED BY recent disapproval on religious expression…

~such as~

-Displays of nativity scenes in public areas
-Wearing a hijab in public schools
-Praying in public schools

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT

1. No member-nation may place restrictions on religious apparel, including, but not limited to: hjiabs, yarmulkes, tilakas, or turbans; assuming that these have intrinsic religious value, and would not be disruptive for the general populace.

2. Member-nations must allow the practice of public prayer, provided that it does not disrupt the general populace.

3.All other forms of expression of religious belief or non-belief, must be protected under the law, as long as it does not disrupt the populace.


Please comment on this, and make constructive critisisms. This is my first resolution, and I would love for it to pass. ;)

This resolution creates duplicate effect. Note the following previous resolutions:

Religious Tolerance

Whereas, Freedom of Religion does not exist in all countries in the world. Whereas, Too many wars are started and fought because of religious differences. Whereas, There is a need for more religious tolerance on Earth. Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion. Be it further resolved that the United Nations oppose all wars fought in the name of God and religion.


The 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.

Article 7 -- Taking into consideration the provisions of the present Convention relating to rank and sex, and subject to any privileged treatment which may be accorded to them by reason of their state of health, age or professional qualifications, all prisoners of war shall be treated alike by the Detaining Power, without any adverse distinction based on race, nationality, religious belief or political opinions, or any other distinction founded on similar criteria.


Rights and Duties of UN States

Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.


The UN already has adequate protections and ground for opposition to nations who deny the human right to freedom of religious expression. Duplicate effect proposals are often jettisoned by moderating staff, and it can only snag you a warning. I'd recommend against trying to move the proposal forward, not that it's a bad idea, just a duplicate.

3.All other forms of expression of religious belief or non-belief, must be protected under the law, as long as it does not disrupt the populace.

'Disrupt the populace' is kind of vague. I'd add or harm others since, y'know, female circumcision or sacrificing infants could be considered forms of religious expression.

Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.


The UN already has adequate protections and ground for opposition to nations who deny the human right to freedom of religious expression. Duplicate effect proposals are often jettisoned by moderating staff, and it can only snag you a warning. I'd recommend against trying to move the proposal forward, not that it's a bad idea, just a duplicate.


Hmm... Well, I might as well argue for this, if just for a moment.

Those resolutions protected the people against religious descimination it does not protect their rights to practice their faith. Just because the government says that yarmulkes arn't allowed, doesn't mean that they are descriminating against Jews, but rather claming down on their religous expression.

Concerning the 'intevention on internal affairs': I consider this a fairly universal proposal... and anyways, the NSUN is FILLED with resolutions that muck with the internal workings of nations...

I know I'm probably wrong... Oh well, it was worth a shot. :(

You need to give an acceptable definition of religion/religious, so that the resolution cannot be ignored by arguing that something is, for instance, more philosophical than religious.

So... is this issue already covered in UN resolutions? Or is it different enough to be considered separate?

I would ask a mod.

It is important to stress the difference between 'religous attire' and 'cultural attire'. Many Muslim scholars agree that the Calmais Al Camis - I have the spelling wrong, tunic and trousers - coupled with a scart is sufficent for Islamic dress, which after all states modesty. Where as the Hijab is cultural, coming from Arabic culture.

There are of course some issues regarding religous or cultural dress, such as health and safety concerns associated with long flowing gowns. Also it may serve to create division even within a singular faith, if one group decide they are more devout or better X than others because they favour a different dress.

It should be a right to bare religous symbols, and Muslim women - whom have the strongest rules regarding dress - should be premited to preserve their modesty by such meassures as waring scarfs and being premitted to ware track suits for PE in schools etc.

I would ask a mod.
I wouldn't.

I'd carefully reread the Passed UN Resolutions, and copy the relevant ones over to my word processor or something. I'd break 'em down, read through them carefully and see if any of the provisions directly or indirectly resolved my issues. If I needed clarification, I'd do a UN Forum search on the resolution name using the Jolt search feature, or alternately look at all UN posts on or around the dates they passed. I'd then view the arguments pro and con, and see if some other bright lad spotted what it is I'm trying to figure out.

The Mods don't set policy in the UN. WE do. It's up to you to decide what's relevant and what isn't.

Should the proposed Draft Resolution reach the floor, the King's Government of Denbighshire will be most pleased to extend its support.

The Prime Minister suggests that, as UN religious-freedom policy is codified in various and sundry sources, it is perhaps best to enact a singular document outlining once and for all said policy. Thus, the Draft Resolution is not a duplicate. While it says nothing earth-shatteringly new, it does have the effect of rededicating UN Member States to the cause of religious freedom.

The Prime Minister would also like to point out that the Draft Resolution, as written, will be nigh impossible to enforce in theocratic Member States. A rewording of the document is recommended, such that each numbered Section is prefaced by the following statement:

"The United Nations encourages Member States to adopt legislation upholding the right of citizens to..."

The King's Government also takes slight issue with numbered Section 2. Public prayer should, of course, be allowed for; however, neither the United Nations nor the individual governments of respective Member States should outwardly encourage such behaviour, as the King's Government feels this would violate established traditions of a separation between the entities of Church and State. Furthermore, full allowance of the "practise of public prayer" could be construed to extend to an allowance of prayer in public schools or government buildings. Said Section should be revised such that the above-listed practises are specifically proscribed, so long as the revision is in concordance with the recommended revision noted previously.

I agree with you. I don't think that anything should be diverted to accomondate these people, but allowing that free practice is human rights in its greatest form.

Should the proposed Draft Resolution reach the floor, the King's Government of Denbighshire will be most pleased to extend its support.

The Prime Minister suggests that, as UN religious-freedom policy is codified in various and sundry sources, it is perhaps best to enact a singular document outlining once and for all said policy. Thus, the Draft Resolution is not a duplicate. While it says nothing earth-shatteringly new, it does have the effect of rededicating UN Member States to the cause of religious freedom.

The Prime Minister would also like to point out that the Draft Resolution, as written, will be nigh impossible to enforce in theocratic Member States. A rewording of the document is recommended, such that each numbered Section is prefaced by the following statement:

"The United Nations encourages Member States to adopt legislation upholding the right of citizens to..."

The King's Government also takes slight issue with numbered Section 2. Public prayer should, of course, be allowed for; however, neither the United Nations nor the individual governments of respective Member States should outwardly encourage such behaviour, as the King's Government feels this would violate established traditions of a separation between the entities of Church and State. Furthermore, full allowance of the "practise of public prayer" could be construed to extend to an allowance of prayer in public schools or government buildings. Said Section should be revised such that the above-listed practises are specifically proscribed, so long as the revision is in concordance with the recommended revision noted previously.

I don't see why we should have to soften basic human rights demands to pander to theocracies. They should have to allow religious freedom whether they like it or not, and if it entails some changes in their governmental system, then good.

I don't think the document as it stands encourages or discourages prayer. And why should prayer in schools necessarily be banned? I can understand if you wish to stop organised prayers, which can isolate children of minority religions, but why should children not be able to pray of their own accord if they so wish?

The basic premise of a theocratic government is a lack of religious freedom. On that, it is hoped, we are agreed. However, we must remember that the United Nations is a deliberative body which is supposed to act in the best interests of all. The Prime Minister grants that theocracy is a dangerous form of government, and only a small number of UN Member States are theocratic in nature; however, it is not the place of a single Member State to decry the governmental practises of another as invalid or wholly wrong. Encouraging religious freedom is a laudable goal, and the King's Government is enthusiastic in its support of the Draft Resolution. However, religious freedom should not be shoved down the throats of those governments who are diametrically in opposition to it.

However, religious freedom should not be shoved down the throats of those governments who are diametrically in opposition to it.

Why not? Surely the individual's sovereignty over his beliefs is far more important than his government's sovereignty over his beliefs.

You need to give an acceptable definition of religion/religious, so that the resolution cannot be ignored by arguing that something is, for instance, more philosophical than religious.
Depends.
Meriam Webster's dictionary sais:
4:a cause, principle, or belief held with faith or ardor (religion)
philosophy is: the study of why we believe in begginings, and other things, such as deities, and love, etc. Some philosophical "sects" may have a conclusion and wish to honor it. If they do that by wearing velvet vests with pink pompoms while at school so be it.

now that i read it, THats not really what i meant... if you belive something and wish to honor your beliefs somehow, you should be fairly unrestricted. Except for sacrifice, but thats a national issue alrready.

"Prayer in public school" is very broad. Are you refering to group prayer? Teacher or student led prayer? Mass prayer? School-wide group prayer?

Concerning the question raised by our colleague from Azuna: It is the position of the King's Government that "prayer in public school" is indeed a vague term, but until amended, the phrase in question should be construed to specifically proscribe teacher-led or compulsory prayer within public schools. Voluntary student-led or individual prayer should and must be allowed, but in no case specifically encouraged. It is not the place of the United Nations to either promote or discourage an individual's religious activity.

In reference to the sentiments of the esteemed gentleman from Myopia, the Prime Minister humbly suggests that judgment be with-held on the issue of theocratic government. While we feel a separation of Church and State is best, we must also realise that not every Member State runs their government the same way. A basic premise of national sovereignty is the right of a nation's government to rule in the best way it sees fit. If this includes a theocratic regime, so be it. While the King's Government feels theocracy is dangerous, we realise that other nations have differing opinions. We do not try to isolate, alienate, or set ourselves in opposition to these nations, although we do not condone their behaviour. Rather, the King's Government, and Foreign Office in particular, makes it a point to treat all nations amicably and justly (so long as we are at a state of peace with them). We encourage all other nations to do similarly, and we urge an amendment to the Draft Resolution.

Religious expression is civil rights.


IT can be taught, but not forced upon students.

If it is forced, then it will NOT happen. If it is taught, then that is fine.


Given the current information, the fiefdom of Poor Dental Hygeine approves of this proposal.

Voluntary student-led or individual prayer should and must be allowed, but in no case specifically encouraged.

I agree totally.

While we feel a separation of Church and State is best, we must also realise that not every Member State runs their government the same way. A basic premise of national sovereignty is the right of a nation's government to rule in the best way it sees fit. If this includes a theocratic regime, so be it. While the King's Government feels theocracy is dangerous, we realise that other nations have differing opinions. We do not try to isolate, alienate, or set ourselves in opposition to these nations, although we do not condone their behaviour. Rather, the King's Government, and Foreign Office in particular, makes it a point to treat all nations amicably and justly (so long as we are at a state of peace with them). We encourage all other nations to do similarly, and we urge an amendment to the Draft Resolution.

I must respectfully disagree with your view. Personally, I don't believe that government should have any rights except what is necessary to serve the populace. Therefore, IMO, when a government is violating its citizens' rights, its right to sovereignty is not a valid argument for failing to intervene. It's the same reason why the NSUN already guarantees certain human rights to citizens of member states.

With all due respect to the Myopic gentleman (whose nationality may be a bit too apropos), what right does the United Nations, as a collective body, have to say whether an individual Member State is upholding their own laws? The King's Government feels it has none. Individual Member States, as well as the Regional Alliances, could and should condemn other Member States who fail to uphold their own laws; but again, this is a matter of how a nation chooses to run its government and serve its citizenry.

Civil rights of citizens are interpreted differently by the individual Member States. Of course we, as an institution, must step in where egregious violations are concerned; but we as an institution cannot interfere completely with an individual Government.

That said, His Majesty the King's Government is of the opinion that this Draft Resolution is far too important to be bogged down by lengthy debates over minutiae. The Prime Minister is pleased to offer the support of the Monarchy of Denbighshire for the Draft Resolution as written, though a clarification of "prayer in public schools" is in order.

Oh, when I said citizens' rights, I meant what I see as the rights they should have, not the rights their government chooses to grant them. Sorry for creating confusion, but I didn't mean to suggest that theocracies weren't upholding their own laws.

Of course we, as an institution, must step in where egregious violations are concerned

Based on this statement, I think we agree in principle but the difference we have is simply how bad the violation of citizens' deserved rights must be before stepping in is justified.

That said, His Majesty the King's Government is of the opinion that this Draft Resolution is far too important to be bogged down by lengthy debates over minutiae. The Prime Minister is pleased to offer the support of the Monarchy of Denbighshire for the Draft Resolution as written, though a clarification of "prayer in public schools" is in order.

I am of the same opinion on this, so let's just agree to disagree on the other issue, eh?

We have an accord. Let us proceed.