NationStates Jolt Archive

This proposal was written by nations in the region God.

It was proposed 11/11/2004 and will expire 11/15/2004.
Pease give it your true consideration.

I am not able to be on the Forums much to defend or explain it, but it has seemed to the members of our region to be pretty clear. I hope we have corrected it already!

We thank you very much, please give it your approval,
Al-Shahhadh


"Religious Freedom"
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

Description:

Recognizing and building upon

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #19 “Religious Tolerance”
and UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #26 “The Universal Bill of Rights”

The United Nations of NationStates hereby reaffirms “Religious Freedom” as a specific human and civil right, and further clarifies “Religious Freedom” as:

The right of all people to hold to and manifest publicly or privately, any beliefs regarding ultimate questions of human, physical or spiritual nature, so long as those manifestations are not in conflict with local or national laws which themselves are not in conflict with the Universal Bill of Rights.

And further,

To “hold beliefs” includes the rights to hold no belief, including beliefs contrary local practice and tradition.

To “hold beliefs” includes the right to publicly (or privately) change beliefs and the practices which follow from them.

To “hold beliefs publicly” includes the right to public worship and other public manifestations of faith (such as dress, grooming, language and ritual practice).

To “hold beliefs publicly” includes the right of parents and legitimate guardians to publicly and/or communally (or privately and domestically) raise and educate those for whom they are responsible within ANY system of belief, so long as no undo physical or psychological coercion is employed therein.

To hold beliefs “publicly” includes the right to publicly (or privately) proselytize or promote one’s beliefs, so long as no physical or psychological coercion is employed therein.

NOTE: All the specific rights here enumerated may be limited or qualified by local or national law or regulation, provided that those laws or regulations are not themselves in conflict with the Universal Bill of Rights.

*thumbs up* Good work.

How is this "Strong"?

Well... it provides definitions strengthening the concepts. Stronger than any other proposal in that regard.

"Mild" I could see, but how does it make a grand sweeping change to the world?

I know... it doesn't. Just wished we rated these things on content, clarity, and organisation as well as impact.;)

I really don't understand what this is supposed to do that is not already being done.

What am I missing?

It defines terms that are without definition, ergo, uniform application of the resolution throughout NS.

But it is limited by national laws. So that if (for example) my Council had passed a law that says "Worship of The Christian God is Illegal" then however much people might think this proposal would let them worship the Christian God, it wouldn't because it would be against the national law.

So what do people actually gain by voting for this?

But it is limited by national laws. So that if (for example) my Council had passed a law that says "Worship of The Christian God is Illegal" then however much people might think this proposal would let them worship the Christian God, it wouldn't because it would be against the national law.

So what do people actually gain by voting for this?

They get to feel good about themselves. A pat on the back? A smiley-face sticker? Stickers are nice.

They get to feel good about themselves. A pat on the back? A smiley-face sticker? Stickers are nice.

See - if someone had explained that to me I would have been happy to support it!! (Although I tend to prefer magnets to stickers)

They get to feel good about themselves. A pat on the back? A smiley-face sticker? Stickers are nice.
Yay! You so have our support now!

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

Villiapange fully supports this amendment, people should have the right to praise whom ever they wish!

---Vice President Monsieur Angeles J. Azureaqaria

TilEnca,it changes your laws so you can't discriminate against the people who want to worship the Christian god, and you can't make it illegal, in the same way that if that ban nukes proposal had gone through, you wouldn't be allowed any nukes

TilEnca,it changes your laws so you can't discriminate against the people who want to worship the Christian god, and you can't make it illegal, in the same way that if that ban nukes proposal had gone through, you wouldn't be allowed any nukes

"The right of all people to hold to and manifest publicly or privately, any beliefs regarding ultimate questions of human, physical or spiritual nature, so long as those manifestations are not in conflict with local or national laws which themselves are not in conflict with the Universal Bill of Rights"

I disagree with your interpretation. If my national laws say that you can not go to church to worship the christian god, then this proposal would not be able to override those laws the way it is written. It specifically says "so long as those manifestations are not in conflict with local or national laws" - so if I pass those laws before the proposal comes in then this proposal could not do anything to change them. By it's own words it is subject to the laws of my nation.

If anyone can give me a convincing explanation as to why I am wrong about this, I will happily read it. But until then I can not see that this proposal will have any affect on religious tolerance or religious freedom, and see no point in supporting it.

See - if someone had explained that to me I would have been happy to support it!! (Although I tend to prefer magnets to stickers)
You could always put the sticker on a magnet.

"The right of all people to hold to and manifest publicly or privately, any beliefs regarding ultimate questions of human, physical or spiritual nature, so long as those manifestations are not in conflict with local or national laws which themselves are not in conflict with the Universal Bill of Rights"

I disagree with your interpretation. If my national laws say that you can not go to church to worship the christian god, then this proposal would not be able to override those laws the way it is written. It specifically says "so long as those manifestations are not in conflict with local or national laws" - so if I pass those laws before the proposal comes in then this proposal could not do anything to change them. By it's own words it is subject to the laws of my nation.

If anyone can give me a convincing explanation as to why I am wrong about this, I will happily read it. But until then I can not see that this proposal will have any affect on religious tolerance or religious freedom, and see no point in supporting it.

The Universal Bill of Rights (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #26, Implemented: Fri Aug 8 2003 ) states:

“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.”

Your hypothetical national law saying “that you can not go to church to worship the christian god” is already counter to existing UN norms.

This proposal states “All the specific rights here enumerated may be limited or qualified by local or national law or regulation, provided that those laws or regulations are not themselves in conflict with the Universal Bill of Rights. "



Regarding previous comments on what this resolution actually accomplishes:

The above Article 1 of the Universal Bill of Rights is more or less the totality of UN discussion of Religious Freedom (along with the rather vague UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #19 “Religious Tolerance”). The region thought that it did significantly add to the meaning and practice of “choose worship any faith”.

UN resolutions are often criticized for their lack of specifics, and this one is very clear about them…


As for the category strength, that was the choice of the nation making the proposal. I do believe however, that Religious Freedom, taken broadly, is a very serious (if not central) human right. The strength might have been “significant” (or even “mild,” I suppose), but I don’t think “strong” is inappropriate.

Peace all,
and thanks for the thought here,

ARMED LOVE

The Clan of The Dog God, UN Delegate of the region BUDDHIST REGION OF JAMBUDVIPA gives support to this resolution and encourages all Delegates to do the same.


Ulaghchi
Obek of the Dog God

Thank You, Clan of Dog God for your help.

Harmony Ambassador
- native of the Region God

“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.”



Then if that is protected why do we need another law to protect it again?

Suppose you have some of my beliefs, which include pacifism and the refusal to swear an oath (which includes the pledge of allegiance)?

That makes you at odds with the prevailing laws, right?

I need more protection than this resolution gives me.

Suppose you have some of my beliefs, which include pacifism and the refusal to swear an oath (which includes the pledge of allegiance)?

That makes you at odds with the prevailing laws, right?

I need more protection than this resolution gives me.

I am sorry, but I still don't understand the benifit of this resolution.

I understand that (even though I would not want to) I can not ban the worship of a Christian God under Article 1 of the Human Rights resolution.

But - and this is where it gets confusing - this proposal does not override the international laws. So if my nation requires you to swear an oath to The Council (again - it doesn't, but it's an example) then you have to swear it. And this proposal says it does not counteract the local laws, even for the benifit of religion.

So either there would have to be an international law to override it - in which case you are already protected and do not need another resolution - or you would have to accept the local law overrides your religious beliefs, and this proposal would do nothing to atler that fact.

Either way - I am not sure what benifit this resolution has. And (if you are at all curious as to why I am keeping on at this topic) I really do not see the reason for passing redundant legislation within the UN.

Definitions are always good for claritive reasons, in a perfect world, no resolution would be without them. Especially since there appears to be no UN Court.

The gay and human rights initiatives for example: they use the terms marrriage and human being respectively. This allows for loopholes. Marriage could mean anything to any NS, and human being could be having the genetic code and having begun the human life cycle. Case and point: now we have a UN resolution defining marriage.

However, feel free to disagree. Seeing the type of UN Resolutions that are accepted with open arms, AP enjoys retaining such National Sovereignty.

I am sorry, but I still don't understand the benifit of this resolution.


The Universal Bill of Rights, UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #26 says

"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."

This resolution adds to that by giving specifics that are to be included in "the right to choose worship any faith", like the right to hold beliefs that may not seem to come under "any faith", to form schools to teach your beliefs, to proselytize beliefs, and show your beliefs publicly in other ways than "worship".

The part in the resolution that says

"NOTE: All the specific rights here enumerated may be limited or qualified by local or national law or regulation, provided that those laws or regulations are not themselves in conflict with the Universal Bill of Rights."

means that the local laws can limit or qualify (NOT abrogate or cancel!) the specifics.


Like -- if churches want to ring bells or mosques have a call to prayer, the local law can regulate how loud these can be etc.

Or if someone wants to preach on the street, the local law can say not on certain narrow sidewalks, or if a loudspeaker is used near residences, or if a crowd of more than 25 gathers, etc.

Or if someone wants to set up a religious school, the local law can say it has to meet building and fire codes, not be in private house with more than 20 students, etc.

But they can't make laws with the intent of just to make it hard or impossible to have religious schools, proselytize your beliefs, or worship as your tradition directs.


A UN resolution can't resolve each dispute, especially in the matter of rights. This is often hard, and have to be worked out in the courts or by local law or tradition.

What is freedom of speech?
Or freedom of the press?

There are always questions and usually are conflicts. But this resolution trys to make "the right to choose worship any faith" clearer with real and important specifics.

It is like a resolution that would state that Freedom of the Press is meant to include the internet, TV and radio, although that one probably seems more obvious than that "the right to choose worship any faith" includes the right to set up religious schools...

Does this make it any clearer?

We thank you very much,
Al-Shahhadh

The Universal Bill of Rights, UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #26 says

"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."

This resolution adds to that by giving specifics that are to be included in "the right to choose worship any faith", like the right to hold beliefs that may not seem to come under "any faith", to form schools to teach your beliefs, to proselytize beliefs, and show your beliefs publicly in other ways than "worship".

The part in the resolution that says

"NOTE: All the specific rights here enumerated may be limited or qualified by local or national law or regulation, provided that those laws or regulations are not themselves in conflict with the Universal Bill of Rights."

means that the local laws can limit or qualify (NOT abrogate or cancel!) the specifics.


Like -- if churches want to ring bells or mosques have a call to prayer, the local law can regulate how loud these can be etc.

Or if someone wants to preach on the street, the local law can say not on certain narrow sidewalks, or if a loudspeaker is used near residences, or if a crowd of more than 25 gathers, etc.

Or if someone wants to set up a religious school, the local law can say it has to meet building and fire codes, not be in private house with more than 20 students, etc.

But they can't make laws with the intent of just to make it hard or impossible to have religious schools, proselytize your beliefs, or worship as your tradition directs.


A UN resolution can't resolve each dispute, especially in the matter of rights. This is often hard, and have to be worked out in the courts or by local law or tradition.

What is freedom of speech?
Or freedom of the press?

There are always questions and usually are conflicts. But this resolution trys to make "the right to choose worship any faith" clearer with real and important specifics.

It is like a resolution that would state that Freedom of the Press is meant to include the internet, TV and radio, although that one probably seems more obvious than that "the right to choose worship any faith" includes the right to set up religious schools...

Does this make it any clearer?

We thank you very much,
Al-Shahhadh

It does make it clearer, but given the definition in the proposal I don't agree.

The laws say it can limit or regulate it. They do not say that you can't limit or regulate it to the point of insanity.

So if this proposal were to pass, and I wanted to prevent street preachers, I could say they can only preach at midnight on a Wednesday. There is nothing in the proposal - as it is written - that would prevent me from doing that. And - before you ask - I am pretty sure I can find a reason for doing that that would not be invalid under this proposal.

And - and this is where you might start to wonder what type of nutcase I am - but I don't approve of proselytizing. Having beliefs is one thing, as is talking about them. But forcing them down the throats of others is not acceptable. If people want to go to church, they can, but I am not going to have them feel like they are forced to do so. If this resolution would permit me to limit how this can be done then I might not have a problem with it.

But still - I don't see how this can be effective the way it is written. With your additional text and comments it does, but they are not part of the proposal, and would not be considered part of the resolution if it were to pass.

It seems that the existing resolution (#26) does not explicitly state that persons have the right to hold no faith (e.g., agnostic, atheist)? Am I reading that right? If that is the case, then perhaps this proposal would address that, in addition to addressing a few other loose ends (mentioned already by others) such as dress? While also not allowing people to violate existing laws (e.g, the noise polution from church bells, forcing someone to dress a certain way, etc.)

We in NM will wait for others with more experience in NS UN to sort out if it is redundant. But we definitely support the spirit of this proposal.

Do we get a sticker now?

The delegates of the BSR support this resolution.

The laws say it can limit or regulate it. They do not say that you can't limit or regulate it to the point of insanity.

I believe it does.

[Full disclosure: ARMED LOVE is the delegate of the region that wrote the proposal]

It states: "provided that those laws or regulations are not themselves in conflict with the Universal Bill of Rights."

And I agree with Al-Shahadh that "rights" are impossible to state conclusively. Some nations (in the real world) consider it a "free press" even if newspapers have to be licensed by the government. Some even if the content of the paper has to pass government censors before publication. To some neither of these would be a truly "free press".

These issues have to be worked through in each society. The right of a "Free Press" though stands before us as an ideal.


This resolution attempts to add some real meat to the skeleton of Article 1 of the NationStates Universal Bill of Rights.


If though you believe that all proselytizing should (or could) be outalwed

no street-corner preachers, no street-corner handing out of religious pamphlets, no Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on the door, no Public Service announcements from the Mormons on late night television promoting good families, no billboards saying "JESUS SAVES", etc., etc.,**

if you believe all that should (or could) be outlawed outright (not just regulated) then maybe you should not support this.

** all rather US examples


And in the US, for example, advertising is at some level considered protected speech. But there are lots of bounds: time, place, content, fraud, community standards. Same, we believe, with proselytizing.


ARMED LOVE

In addition to the above:

The resolution also states:

"To hold beliefs “publicly” includes the right to publicly (or privately) proselytize or promote one’s beliefs, so long as no physical or psychological coercion is employed therein."

ARMED LOVE

It states: "provided that those laws or regulations are not themselves in conflict with the Universal Bill of Rights."


The UBR says I can not punish someone for holding beliefs. It does not say that I can't make a law preaching against any other day than a Wednesday.

So why can I not make a law (before this proposal passes) that says "you can only preach on a Wednesday"?


This resolution attempts to add some real meat to the skeleton of Article 1 of the NationStates Universal Bill of Rights.


Which I think it fails at. The UBR does not prevent laws against religion, and this proposal says that you can manifest your beliefs within local laws.

So the local laws are still paramount.


If though you believe that all proselytizing should (or could) be outalwed

no street-corner preachers, no street-corner handing out of religious pamphlets, no Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on the door, no Public Service announcements from the Mormons on late night television promoting good families, no billboards saying "JESUS SAVES", etc., etc.,**


Billboards I have no problem with. Street-corner leaflets I have no problem with. TV adverts I have no problem with. These are all things you can turn off and ignore.
People knocking on your door - as long as they go away when you say you are not interested, I have no problem with. But it depends on what your definition of "co-ercion" is.

What I do have a problem with is people being invited in to schools to speak, and people who use the cover of good deeds (such as running a soup shelter, or a hospital) to spread their beliefs. People who are hungry, people who are sick should not be lectured about the second coming.


if you believe all that should (or could) be outlawed outright (not just regulated) then maybe you should not support this.


Again if I can regulate it, then I have no problem with it.

And what makes you think I would support this?



And in the US, for example, advertising is at some level considered protected speech. But there are lots of bounds: time, place, content, fraud, community standards. Same, we believe, with proselytizing.


I might agree, but a lot of some religions' speach can be considered to incite hatred and violance.

In addition to the above:

The resolution also states:

"To hold beliefs “publicly” includes the right to publicly (or privately) proselytize or promote one’s beliefs, so long as no physical or psychological coercion is employed therein."

ARMED LOVE

How does this proposal, or how do you, define cocerion?

And just to be even more picky about Article 1 of the UBR - it doesn't say what you think it says.

"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."

What this says is someone has the right to chose to worship a faith. It does not say that the state can not ban that worship, and it doesn't say that the state must accept that worship.

It then goes on to say that the person can change religious beliefs without punishment from the state. So all that means is they can not be punished for switching religions.

And - if you are looking at the grammar of the article correctly - it does NOT prohibit the state from punishing anyone who picks a certain religion. It only prohibits the state from punishing them if they change religions.

So it can be (and will be, by me) argued that if I want to outlaw a certain religion, there is nothing in the UBR that would stop me, and consequently this proposal, which says it can not override local laws that are not in contravention of the UBR (which as I just explained is pretty vague and ultimately useless on the topic of religious freedom), can not stop me from outlawing religions.

Can anyone provide me with a solid arguement that proves this theory wrong?

(I know - the spirit of article 1 implies that anyone can worship whom they wish. But the actual letter of it says that I can punish people for following certain religions, and there is nothing it can do to stop me).

The right of all people to hold to and manifest publicly or privately... so long as those manifestations are not in conflict with local or national laws which themselves are not in conflict with the Universal Bill of Rights.

So this is pretty much just reminding us not to violate the UBR?