NationStates Jolt Archive

My second (and last) attempt to separate Church and State (I've made some minor changes), voting ends Friday:

Description: 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. The government of a UN nation should guarantee the religious freedom of its inhabitants (see Article 1 of the Universal Bill of Rights, UN Resolution #26), 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.

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.

First, and foremost, a separation of church and state is a sovereign nation issue, not the United Nations duty to regulate.

The rights of the minority have historically been violated by the rights of the majority.

First off, not all nations are intolerant of other religions. By suggesting that the violation of minority rights is taking place via a lack of separation of church and state is absurd and ludicrous, as you have backed up your proposal with no evidence to suggest that this occurs in today's day and age within the NS UN.

You cite previous resolutions, like the Universal Bill of Rights, which already protects religion within UN nations, IIRC, and as such, should eliminate the need for a separation of church and state in any event, because the rights of ALL - not just the minority - are already protected.

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.

This has nothing to do with church and state but rather with the temperment of the government at hand. Most religious preach pacifism, and if a country chooses to remain pacifistic when in trouble, then, so be it; that is their choice and right as a sovereign nation.

The state might harm the church.

I do not quite think you understand the concept of church and state. Church and state is a thoroughly autonomous structure, thus, the state would not harm the church, because the state would be supporting and in essence, for, the church; therefore, to suggest that the state would harm the church or vice versa in your previous argument is invalid.

My nation has not great love of religiously motivated government, but that is possibly because of our history with The Church in our own country.

But we don't believe we have the right to decide this for people who are not in our nation. And quite honestly I have seen some good examples of where it works very well.

This should not be a UN issue - in the same way that religious concerns about abortion and homosexuality should be decided within a nation, religious concerns about government should be the same way.

Government Institutions should be secular. However, that does not mean that we cannot "fund religious activities". I believe it is good to promote faith within one's nation, that it establishes a sense of morality. People should be allowed to take on whatever faith they wish and know the government is as secular as possible, however with indirect religious influences. After all, religion is the basis of common law, it is foolish not to fund it or promote it. To do so is to take something away from the community, and something that a great many citizens would not want.

Government Institutions should be secular.

Why? What evidence do you have to support that assertion, if I may ask? So far, neither the original poster nor yourself have presented any real threat of not having a separation of church and state.

stuff


Go away.

Religion is a deeply felt impulse in all civilizations. It has survive millenia of attempts at eradication. It is a based upon a biological impulse for survival [read Wlater Burkert} and is the one institution least likely to change in times of stress and upheaval.


So whether the idea appeals to you or not, religion is here to stay. The next question: What to do with it?

Unless a way is found to allow reasonable freedoms for religious expression, there will be inevitable eruptions of rebellion and defiance by the religious. We can see this happen around us now.

So we support this resolution. No state sponsored religion, but no state imposed humanism/atheism either. Freedom.

Libertarians at least should agree here.

Religion is a deeply felt impulse in all civilizations. It has survive millenia of attempts at eradication. It is a based upon a biological impulse for survival [read Wlater Burkert} and is the one institution least likely to change in times of stress and upheaval.


So whether the idea appeals to you or not, religion is here to stay. The next question: What to do with it?

Unless a way is found to allow reasonable freedoms for religious expression, there will be inevitable eruptions of rebellion and defiance by the religious. We can see this happen around us now.

So we support this resolution. No state sponsored religion, but no state imposed humanism/atheism either. Freedom.

Libertarians at least should agree here.

We do....

We will both oppose mandated religion (of any sort) or even mandated irrelegion. In all cases, protection of individual beliefs are a logical extenstion of the fundamental rights (life, liberty and happiness).

We are as adverse to banning all religion from public institutions as mandating any particular one. Which is where libertarians disagree with contemporary liberalism.

For example, in a situation where a group of students want to lead a prayer among themselves...

Classically a conservative would allow it, and make it compulsory.

Classically a liberal would ban the activity of all sorts

A libertarian would allow it as non-compulsory.

Which view lines up with the principles of freedom? The libertarian of course, as both the conservative and liberal act dictatorial in manner (proscribing an event) whereas the Libertarian acts under liberal principles (not liberal in modern sense, but traditional sense)... leaving the decision to the individuals participating, rather than overlording it.

Tekania would support the resoltuion to suspend government from acting on or in religion. However, we have no problem with religion in and of itself taking part in government, to prevent religious involvement in government would be counter to the principles of freedom and democracy, as those religions, being composed of membered individuals, also part of overal society have as much right and say in their nation as those who are not as such.

This is the choice of a nation, not a league of nations to decide. If you wish to separate church and state within your borders that's fine, but your beliefs of how someone else's government should be run could be far different then theirs.

I vote no.

Yeah but Tekania and I are right about this issue, so you should just do it our way.

Voluntarily, of course.

Why? What evidence do you have to support that assertion, if I may ask? So far, neither the original poster nor yourself have presented any real threat of not having a separation of church and state.
I did not say that it is the truth, Tuesday, nor did I say it was a threat. This is my opinion of a democratic, Locke-influenced society. I said should because should is not a word of solidity. One is allowed opinions, no? After all, even a law is just a general moral opinion.

I did not say that it is the truth, Tuesday, nor did I say it was a threat. This is my opinion of a democratic, Locke-influenced society.

I was just asking for proof, as is my right; all you had to do was to say where you came up with those assertions. I'm done here if people want to get upset that I pose relevant questions. :rolleyes:

I was just asking for proof, as is my right; all you had to do was to say where you came up with those assertions. I'm done here if people want to get upset that I pose relevant questions. :rolleyes:
I was not getting upset, I was defending and clarifying my statement (as is my right) and I did so by saying where I came from with those assertions (saying it was my opinion).
There's no need to be so rude, Tuesday. I think its clear that I wasn't attacking you or getting worked up.

It is quite clear that the U.N needs a clear resolution defining the separation of church and state. Not only to keep religion out of government, but to stop the interference of government in church doctrines or ceremonies.
Just look what the government is doing with gay marriage, we all know that most religions think homosexuality is wrong, not all of us agree, but it’s just one of those things that you have to agree to disagree about. So if I were gay, which I am, I would participate in a religious group that was accepting of me instead of trying to force another group through my government to change their doctrines.
Marriage has been and always will be a religious ceremony there is no way of arguing around it, this has been going on for thousands of years. There is no need for a government to be involved in any marriage; it’s a religious ceremony. If I wanted to get married I would do it through a religious group that accepted me and not my government.
The point I am getting at is that this amendment will work for both religion and government. Religious laws will not be changed and government will not be changed by religion, plain and simple.
Now don’t get me wrong, I would like the same protection and benefits as straight couples, so our governments should just issue civil unions with the same protection and benefits for everyone, government has no place in the marriage business.
Separation of church and state is about tolerance, that all religions are created equal in the eyes of the government. This law will protect those who do worship a higher power by keeping government out of church law and it will protect us all from religious discrimination in our government.

Pass this resolution!

There's no need to be so rude, Tuesday.

I wasn't being rude; you can't just throw out assertions without fact in the UN forum when trying to "back up" claims. Opinions just don't cut it, IMHO, hence, my ardent nature in this case.

I wasn't being rude; you can't just throw out assertions without fact in the UN forum when trying to "back up" claims. Opinions just don't cut it, IMHO, hence, my ardent nature in this case.
Understandable and acceptable. However, I can put my support towards the seclusion of government institutions through the general opinion supported within my government.
When dealing with UN Resolutions, I don't think purely out of logic. Instead I put my own beliefs towards this, beliefs that are my opinions and the opinions of my people.
Nonetheless, I wish you luck in your passionate case regarding this topic.

When dealing with UN Resolutions, I don't think purely out of logic. Instead I put my own beliefs towards this, beliefs that are my opinions and the opinions of my people.

That's what our disagreement lies. I don't support proposals on the basis of my "people," I do so on the basis on the integrity and nature of the UN.

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.

So, if a church regards charity as a religious obligation (ooh, Christianity? Islam?) the state is forbidden from funding church charities?
If politicians are forbidden from expressing religious preferences, this has two obvious effects:
1)the voters have no idea where the candidate is coming from, and so cannot judge whether the candidate has a moral code they will be comfortable with, and
2) politicians can weasel out of moral issues by using this resolution as a sort of '5th amendment': "I'm sorry your Honour, but to comment on this would reveal my religious leanings, which is illegal!".

I really don't like this....

That's what our disagreement lies. I don't support proposals on the basis of my "people," I do so on the basis on the integrity and nature of the UN.
It is not just Black and White, though - there should always be a balance between logic and general consensus.

It is not just Black and White, though - there should always be a balance between logic and general consensus.

Not in my world. :p