NationStates Jolt Archive

Separation of Church and State (voting ends Saturday):


The government of a UN nation must be a secular institution; that is, have no state religion, have no legislation that outlaws or favors one religion over another, and have no religiously motivated regulations on the eligibility of the nation's politicians. A UN nation should have no power over the nation's churches and the nation's churches should have no political powers over the members of the government. A UN nation should not establish nor fund religious activities, and must keep religious beliefs out of the motivations of public policies, preventing interference from religious authorities into state affairs. In addition, politicians should not express religious preferences in the course of their duties.

The above regulations must be inscribed in the constitutions of all UN nations.

It does NOT follow from the above regulations that UN nations must be atheist (opposed to religion).

Motivation:
1) The rights of the minority have historically been violated by the rights of the majority. Members of a non-majority religion often find themselves persecuted, socially shunned, and harassed.
2) The church might harm the state. For example, religious conviction might cause the state to become involved in a disastrous war, or to remain pacific when force is necessary for the preservation of the state. It may also influence public policies in a manner detrimental to those who do not follow all the church's teachings. In addition, religious conviction may make political debate difficult, it being impossible to contradict arguments which, essentially, arise from personal faith. Granting them official status allows politicians to use religion as an argument of authority.
3) The state might harm the church. For example, the state might dictate a religious ceremony that the church's dogma declares is wrong; or, the state may force the participation of religious people in some aspect of civic life in a manner that offends their religious convictions and offends their conscience; or, the state may discriminate in favor of one church and against members of other churches.

I strongly disagree.

1. How will the people know what's best for them if they don't have the government to tell them what to do. The government knows best. The dictator, or emperor, or president would not be in office unless they knew what they were doing. They got there by being the deceptive people they are, and the people liked what they saw. If the government doesn't tell people what church they can go to, then what will happen when little anti-government cults start forming. What will the government do then. After that come the kamakazies. What then?????

Separation of Church and State (voting ends Saturday):


The government of a UN nation must be a secular institution; that is, have no state religion, have no legislation that outlaws or favors one religion over another, and have no religiously motivated regulations on the eligibility of the nation's politicians. A UN nation should have no power over the nation's churches and the nation's churches should have no political powers over the members of the government. A UN nation should not establish nor fund religious activities, and must keep religious beliefs out of the motivations of public policies, preventing interference from religious authorities into state affairs. In addition, politicians should not express religious preferences in the course of their duties.

The above regulations must be inscribed in the constitutions of all UN nations.

It does NOT follow from the above regulations that UN nations must be atheist (opposed to religion).

Motivation:
1) The rights of the minority have historically been violated by the rights of the majority. Members of a non-majority religion often find themselves persecuted, socially shunned, and harassed.
2) The church might harm the state. For example, religious conviction might cause the state to become involved in a disastrous war, or to remain pacific when force is necessary for the preservation of the state. It may also influence public policies in a manner detrimental to those who do not follow all the church's teachings. In addition, religious conviction may make political debate difficult, it being impossible to contradict arguments which, essentially, arise from personal faith. Granting them official status allows politicians to use religion as an argument of authority.
3) The state might harm the church. For example, the state might dictate a religious ceremony that the church's dogma declares is wrong; or, the state may force the participation of religious people in some aspect of civic life in a manner that offends their religious convictions and offends their conscience; or, the state may discriminate in favor of one church and against members of other churches.


Erm - no.

My biggest problem is that the state can have no power over the churches. Because that would put all the nation's churches above the law. Which is such a bad idea - they could bring back ritual sacrifices, overturn various government laws, because the laws won't apply on church ground, and basically turn the whole of the church system in to a nation within a nation. Which is not a good thing.

While I do agree that it is not wise for a government to have religious doctrine enshrined in their laws, I can't say that everyone else should be forced to agree with me.

Also my belief in The Lords Of Order is a well known preference, and not once has anyone ever accused me of passing laws because of my beliefs. So I don't feel that I should be banned from expressing my religious beliefs either in Council meetings or in public.

The above regulations must be inscribed in the constitutions of all UN nations.


Also we don't have a constitution, and we are not writing one just so we can write these laws in to it.

Also we don't have a constitution
Umm, yes you do. You're a UN member, and the Compliance Ministry sneaks around each time and updates your Constitution and law books every time a UN resolution passes.

So yes, you do have one. Did you look under the table? Maybe behind the couch?

------------------
To the original poster:Rights and Duties of UN States (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030090&postcount=50)
The Principle of National Sovereignty:

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. That includes Theocracies, sir. You can't legislate that out.

Umm, yes you do. You're a UN member, and the Compliance Ministry sneaks around each time and updates your Constitution and law books every time a UN resolution passes.

So yes, you do have one. Did you look under the table? Maybe behind the couch?


Really? Cause I don't remember writing one. We have laws and a set of guidelines for government. If that counts as a constitution then I accept we have one.

(somewhat off topic, but in character) Would this be better discussed elsewhere?

Of course, churches should not be above the law. When I wrote that 'a UN nation should have no power over the nation's churches', I just meant to say that there should be religious freedom. If murdering an innocent person is forbidden in a certain UN nation, anyone who practices ritual sacrifices should, of course, be punished according to the law of that nation.

I'm more concerned by article 1, cited by Frisbeeteria. But it seems to me that, according to this article, although the choice of government cannot be dictated by another UN nation, it can be dictated by the UN itself. After all, the UN also dictates the 'legal powers' or the legislation of UN nations if a certain UN resolution passes.

Some governments are founded entirely around the church, and this works for them. To force them to lose religion would force them to lose power, and you'd be in worse shape. What right does the UN have to dictate how the government and church interact, anyways?

The government of a UN nation must be a secular institution; that is, have no state religion, have no legislation that outlaws or favors one religion over another,

what about negative, destructive religions, like some extreme forms of Satanism? Some cults and such need to be made illegal. However, according to this resolution, to make even such dangerous religions illegal, you would have to make ALL religions illegal, in the spirit of fairness between religions.

This one needs some work, then maybe you can try resubmitting it.

The Conseilin of Enn does not support this proposal. It would, in effect, outlaw theocracies and hieracracies.

The Conseilin of Enn does not support this proposal. It would, in effect, outlaw theocracies and hieracracies.

Agreed.

Of course, churches should not be above the law. When I wrote that 'a UN nation should have no power over the nation's churches', I just meant to say that there should be religious freedom. If murdering an innocent person is forbidden in a certain UN nation, anyone who practices ritual sacrifices should, of course, be punished according to the law of that nation.

I'm more concerned by article 1, cited by Frisbeeteria. But it seems to me that, according to this article, although the choice of government cannot be dictated by another UN nation, it can be dictated by the UN itself. After all, the UN also dictates the 'legal powers' or the legislation of UN nations if a certain UN resolution passes.

The UN has no power to dictate what government a country should have. If you got that from Article 1 then I suggest you are misreading it :}

And on the same topic - if I could read that "The government has no power over the nation's churches" to mean that the churches are above the law, then maybe you could possibly do to re-write it so it is more clear :}

Some governments are founded entirely around the church, and this works for them. To force them to lose religion would force them to lose power, and you'd be in worse shape. What right does the UN have to dictate how the government and church interact, anyways?

The government of a UN nation must be a secular institution; that is, have no state religion, have no legislation that outlaws or favors one religion over another,

what about negative, destructive religions, like some extreme forms of Satanism? Some cults and such need to be made illegal. However, according to this resolution, to make even such dangerous religions illegal, you would have to make ALL religions illegal, in the spirit of fairness between religions.

This one needs some work, then maybe you can try resubmitting it.

You can't make a religion illegal just because you think it is negative and destructive. Religious tolerance means you have tolerance for all religions. Not necessarily their practices (ritual child murder is probably not acceptable in most countries) but their religion.

All right. It's clear to me now that I should not have written "The government has no power over the nation's churches". This was, indeed, badly worded...

It is, in fact, precisely my intention to outlaw theocracies... :) If we can't have laws about these kinds of things, it's a loss. It is often said that the UN is a weak organisation with no real power at all. Maybe it is time for some more important resolutions with real impact that can change the face of the earth... (I'm a bit of an idealist, I know.) ;)

All right. It's clear to me now that I should not have written "The government has no power over the nation's churches". This was, indeed, badly worded...

It is, in fact, precisely my intention to outlaw theocracies... :) If we can't have laws about these kinds of things, it's a loss. It is often said that the UN is a weak organisation with no real power at all. Maybe it is time for some more important resolutions with real impact that can change the face of the earth... (I'm a bit of an idealist, I know.) ;)

What's wrong with theocracies?

What's wrong with theocracies?
Nothing, outlawing of a theocracy isn't allowed in a resolution

Banning Political/Economic Models:
Countries of all shapes and sizes are welcome in the United Nations, regardless of their economic or political policies. A right-wing dictatorship and a civil-rights love-fest are both equally valid governments in these halls. Because of this tolerant attitude, no resolution may prohibit any kind of political or economic system.

For further information from the Guide, click here
(http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342360&page=1)

Or you could just ask Marvin. He knows everything about the guide. And he's sad.

Hmm. This seems to be my death blow, Powerhungry Chipmunks...

What's wrong with theocracies? Well, just see the motivation.

What is the legal status of this United Nations Resolution Writing Guide? Just some guidelines, or is it more?

Hmm. This seems to be my death blow, Powerhungry Chipmunks...

What's wrong with theocracies? Well, just see the motivation.

That's not actually an answer.

Governments of a multi-religious society that favour one religion over another are a bad thing, because it puts a part of the nation at a huge disadvantage because of what they believe.

But a theocracy, where the entire country supports a religious government, shouldn't be a problem.

The above regulations must be inscribed in the constitutions of all UN nations.

How dare you suggest that all UN nations must include ANYTHING in their Constitutions... who the hell does your country think it is trying to change the validity, hardwork, valor, and even threat it took for countries to create, maintain, and defend their Constitution?

Good point, Tuesday Heights. But the Free Land of Kapellen dares everything!
It can be argued that the separation of church and state cannot be regulated by the UN, but IF it would be regulated by the UN, it is most certainly important enough to be made a part of the constitution of the UN members. If the separation of church and state is not inscribed in the constitution, it is very likely to remain a dead letter.

Tilenca, I personally do not believe it is possible that an entire country supports a religious government (or any other government, for that matter). In certain circumstances, it may seem that way, because an important part of the population is silenced in one way or another. And even if an entire country supports a religious government, this would seem to indicate some kind of brainwashing by the government, which cannot be tolerated.

And even if an entire country supports a religious government, this would seem to indicate some kind of brainwashing by the government, which cannot be tolerated.That's a very serious allegation and one we believe is entirely unsupported by evidence.

On a general note, in benevolent theocracies such as ours everything from health care to education is funded by the church. Where would you suggest we get new funding from if this motion is passed?

And even if an entire country supports a religious government, this would seem to indicate some kind of brainwashing by the government, which cannot be tolerated.
OOC: So... you would advocate the shutting down of the Vatican City? That is how this comment reads to me.

IC: Kapellen, you are also deeply offensive about national constitutions. In order to change the Constitution of the Conseilin, a two thirds majority must be reached in the People's Assembly, and then a majority also be reached in the Council. What you are advocating - specific UN involvement in our constitution (were we to rejoin the UN) would be tantamount to the complete loss of our ability to govern our own nation.

Signed,
The Thirteen Councillors of Enn.

It can be argued that the separation of church and state cannot be regulated by the UN, but IF it would be regulated by the UN, it is most certainly important enough to be made a part of the constitution of the UN members.

Nothing an international body is doing is important enough to deface a member-nation's Constitution.

If the separation of church and state is not inscribed in the constitution, it is very likely to remain a dead letter.

I respectively disagree that the idea of separation of church and state needs to be legally put into a nation's Constitution. That idea alone is going to drive nations out of the UN, because it's not the United Nations place to impose sanctions/changes on the Constitution of ANY nation.

Period. End of story. That alone will doom this proposal to the trash heap.

Some governments are founded entirely around the church, and this works for them. To force them to lose religion would force them to lose power, and you'd be in worse shape. What right does the UN have to dictate how the government and church interact, anyways?

The government of a UN nation must be a secular institution; that is, have no state religion, have no legislation that outlaws or favors one religion over another,

what about negative, destructive religions, like some extreme forms of Satanism? Some cults and such need to be made illegal. However, according to this resolution, to make even such dangerous religions illegal, you would have to make ALL religions illegal, in the spirit of fairness between religions.

This one needs some work, then maybe you can try resubmitting it.


So, you're trying to say that a Satanist Theocracy can't be a UN member.

*thwack*

There are no dangerous religions. There are dangerous bigots who try and legislate their own morality.

Believe you me, it's been tried. It doesn't work. And each nation has the right to any government it chooses - including one no one else likes or supports.

And that includes "dangerous religions". Personally, methinks Christianity is somewhat dangerous. Heard of the Crusades? Spanish Inquisition anyone?

I'm all for the separation of church and state. Even the separation of religion and state inasmuch as is possible without restricting religious freedoms unnecessarily would be nice. However...

Remember this everyone-

National Sovereignty: It's Like That "Tolerance" Crap on a National Level

So, you're trying to say that a Satanist Theocracy can't be a UN member.

*thwack*



I made no reference as to who could and couldn't be a UN member, religious or non-religious, satanist or catholic. I'm just saying that, if for whatever reason a government disproved of a specific religion, they can't do anything about it without doing that to all religions. However, having said that, you CAN make their practices illegal (thanks, tilEnca.)

Basically, I'm sending your government the medical bill on that *thwack*.

I made no reference as to who could and couldn't be a UN member, religious or non-religious, satanist or catholic. I'm just saying that, if for whatever reason a government disproved of a specific religion, they can't do anything about it without doing that to all religions. However, having said that, you CAN make their practices illegal (thanks, tilEnca.)

Basically, I'm sending your government the medical bill on that *thwack*.

Woah - I think I should qualifiy the thanks I am getting. The way you have written it implies that you can make laws to outlaw the practice of a specific religion. Which is SO not what I meant. I meant that if the practice of the religion contravines already existing laws, then you can stop them from doing those particular practices. As long as these laws are applied equally across all religions I have no problem with it- but outlawing specific practices of specific religions is not nice, and possibly against one of the resolutions of the UN.

This was what I actually said


You can't make a religion illegal just because you think it is negative and destructive. Religious tolerance means you have tolerance for all religions. Not necessarily their practices (ritual child murder is probably not acceptable in most countries) but their religion.


which, to me, does not indicate the outlawing of specific practices of specific religions. You stop Satanists from performing ritual child murders, you have to stop Catholics too, otherwise you are being mean :}

Why not create a resolution that states that the UN cannot recognize any religion as an influence over its delegation?

The member states are free to push or deny any religion they so choose, with the exception that the UN will not allow religious influence to dictate its affairs?

All right. It's clear to me now that I should not have written "The government has no power over the nation's churches". This was, indeed, badly worded...

It is, in fact, precisely my intention to outlaw theocracies... :) If we can't have laws about these kinds of things, it's a loss. It is often said that the UN is a weak organisation with no real power at all. Maybe it is time for some more important resolutions with real impact that can change the face of the earth... (I'm a bit of an idealist, I know.) ;)

Expect my armies at your door and my boot up your ass for that arrogant comment. See you in II.