NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: Where-as the tenets of humanity speak to the betterment of society through equity of treatment of our brothers and sisters of the world.

Where-as the tenets of religion speak to the betterment of society through fair and just treatement of our brothers and sisters of the world.

Where-as wars, both offensive/defensive and civil are waged in the name of religion.

Where-as religion is used as a powerful motivation and inspiration for the people of our world.

Where-as the people of our world overwhelmingly wish for a start to the process of peace.

Where-as without the excuse of religion for aforementioned wars; nations are forced to admit the true reasons of their declaration.

The United States of Laiste presents, before the United Nations, a Resolution on War, Human Rights and Religion. May it be as such that no nation will declare war on another nation for the purpose of religious intolerance. May it be as such that no nation will undermine the human rights of their citizenry based upon an individuals religious preference.

Approvals: 7 (MiGetplace, WZ Forums, Pharan, BAffodoro, JS Nijmegen, The Lidless I, Sargonastan)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 131 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Nov 14 2004


This is a very important resolution at the current time. I, Tatiana - High Priestess of Laiste, have put forth this Resolution as one of the founding steps towards peace. Please, I open discussion to the delegation and members of the UN.

*scratches head in bemusement*

Ultra-conservative religious supremism is rampant? I hope you are not talking about the UN, because if you are...WTF?

Greetings, Tatiana, High Priestes of Laiste!

If WE were an UN delegate, WE would give your proposal OUR approval

Talaan bartaik!

I'm not sure that the Republic would concur with the position that "wars both offensive/defensive and civil are waged in the name of religion." And, as such, cannot presently approve of this resolution. In it's history, the Republic has been through many wars, and none of them were waged "in the name of religion"... Protecting weaker nations from aggressors, yes; Protecting all civilizations in the galaxy from incursions by destructive life forms, yes; to bring other waring factions to the peace table, yes; but, never in the name of religion.

It does not state that all wars are waged in the name of religion. However it states a fact, wars ARE waged in the name of religion.

All wars are NOT waged in the name of religion.
Some wars ARE waged in the name of religion and thus is part of what this resolution is in regards to.

Half of this has already been done: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029620&postcount=20

It is not as clearly defined as this resolution is. This states that no member of the United Nations shall engage in a war based on the excuse of religion. I have researched. There is a difference. This resolution forces an alterior excuse to be manifested for the war and adds to the accountability of nations.

Terminology and wording is very important when deciding resolutions and I look forward to your support in this resolution.

It is not as clearly defined as this resolution is. This states that no member of the United Nations shall engage in a war based on the excuse of religion. I have researched. There is a difference. This resolution forces an alterior excuse to be manifested for the war and adds to the accountability of nations.

Terminology and wording is very important when deciding resolutions and I look forward to your support in this resolution.

(from the resolution quoted)
"Be it further resolved that the United Nations oppose all wars fought in the name of God and religion."

I think that is pretty clear. And - it could be argued - in the name of religious tolerance (which the quoted resolution says) the UN can not say "you can't fight a war because of your religion" because - "that the United Nations support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion." That you can not say someone can't go to war based on religion because it is *their* religion.

Also - and this is where it gets confusing and sticky - if TilEnca were to go to war to defend our nation against invaders (which is pretty much the only reason we would go to war), it is most likely we would defend it in the name of The Powers That Be. Not because we wish to enforce our religion on anyone else, and not because we plan to make any nation that invades us convert to our religion, but because everything we do we do by the grace of The Powers and The Lords. And if we are to die in their service - defending their people and their nation - then we should at least be permitted to acknowledge that when we fight.

Also, wouldn't this go some way to helping nations cover up when they are in fact going to war because of religion? Because they are actively encouraged by this proposal to cover it up with another, possibly false, secular reason, whilst fighting a religious war.

Also, wouldn't this go some way to helping nations cover up when they are in fact going to war because of religion? Because they are actively encouraged by this proposal to cover it up with another, possibly false, secular reason, whilst fighting a religious war.

The everyday praxis is the other way around.

Remember, this is nationstates, and there are a lot of crazy nations. Their motives probably don't always match the motives of real nations.

If the leaders of a nation wish to wage war, they will find a reason. Whatever that reason may be stated as in their propaganda is of little importance. This is just another resolution trying to Outlaw War. Well, that's great, but just because you make a law doesn't mean that you eliminate the behavior. Laws against murder don't eliminate all murders; laws against war won't eliminate war. What you need here, if you want to succeed with the proposal, is to create consequences for wars waged in the name of religion. Still, I see little point, as most nations would find their wars sufficiently justified for other reasons.

thinia is behind you 100%

We find this resolution redundant and we will not support it.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States