NationStates Jolt Archive

Honored Ambassador,

The United Nations Association -- Mikitivity would like to conduct a survey to feel out the NS UN forum’s interest in various UN resolution categories. These results will be archived and shared with UN members and non-members in order to facilitate better proposal writing. This third survey focuses just on Moral Decency. The first survey focused on Human Rights ( http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=372841) and the second focused on Social Justice ( http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=373158). We’d encourage you to look at them both as well if you’ve not already participated in that survey.

Since national opinions are subject to change, this survey is limited and will be conducted again at a future date.

As your schedule permits, please respond to the poll included with this survey. These responses are general, but comments (in the form of a post) are most welcomed and will be reviewed and shared along side the poll results. I think you’ll be pleased with the graphics we plan to share based on these survey results!

Background
(taken from the official UN description of Human Rights and Moral Decency resolutions):

Human Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Moral Decency
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

These are exactly opposed types of resolutions and affect Civil Freedoms. "Human Rights" increases these freedoms while "Moral Decency" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Civil policies of UN member nations; Shall the UN require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects? If it's an issue about how you choose to live your life (or if you have a choice), then it's Civil Freedoms. Total Personal/Civil Freedoms are one of the components of Anarchy. Zero Civil Freedoms are Totalitarian regimes.

"Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.


A printer friendly copy of all 4 UN Moral Decency resolutions (passed and failed) is available at the UNA archive:

http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/MoralDec.pdf

Here is a chronological list of the 4 Moral Decency resolutions that have been brought to the UN floor to date:

Outlaw Pedophilia
No Marriage Under Age of 15
Good Samaritan Laws
Epidemic Prevention Protocol

The question:

How likely are you to support a UN Moral Decency Resolution?

Always (We supported all of them)
Very Likely (We supported 75% to 100% of them)
Likely (We supported 50% to 75% of them)
Unlikely (We supported 25% to 50% of them)
Very Unlikely (We supported 0% to 25% of them)
Never (We supported none of them)
other – please explain

Thank you,
Janet Van Dyne
Chairwoman, United Nations Association – Mikitivity

Don't worry ... I'm going to stop here and let others get started for now. I just wanted something opposite of the Human Rights, but since Frisbeeteria had suggested Social Justice I threw up two additiona surveys instead of one.

Yes, I'm aware that the cut-offs for the group of 12 and group of 4 resolutions mean, you can easily hit the quartiles (25%, 50%, and 75%). Use your own judgement ... picking based on votes alone isn't really want I'm fishing for. I want a feel for what types of resolutions UN members like.

I have two different stories to tell here (meaning two different graphical presentations already to go -- I just need data). The content of my story will come from you, but I think many of you will appreciate what I'm working on here.

It is a long-term project and it will be revisited again 3 to 4 months from now, as I'd also like to test the long-term trends as well.

Where as Social Justice and Human Rights can be seen as objective (to some extent), Morals are soley subjective. They depend on the environment in which a person has been raised, what religious beliefs they follow and how they have been treated in the world.

But personally I would not dismiss a proposal out of hand just because it is classed as moral decency. But again that is because morals are subjective and if I agree with them I would most likely agree with the proposal, but if I disagree then I would disagree with the proposal.

The two that would be the best examples are "Outlaw Paedophillia" and "No Marriage Under Age of 15" resolutions.

These would both appear to be the same thing - to stop children being sexually molested. However the first one is declarative, and does not seek to impose specific values on the society. It only says "pre-pubescent child" rather than a child under a specific age. This means that if children in one nation generally reach puberty by the age of 7, this resolution would not apply to them, but it might apply to children of the age of 7 in another nation where children mature more slowly.

The second one gives a specific age limit - 15 - that has been determined without respect to any other nation. It also makes dubious comments about "rural nations", but that is not my main objection. In some nations children are considered adults at an age younger than 15 - TilEnca has an age of majority of 14 for example - so this proposal would prevent adults from marrying in my nation. And it's possible this applies to other nations as well (I am almost certain, since it was voted down).

While both of them seek to address the same situation, one does it in a way that respects the cultures of other nations, but the second just tries to impose the moral values of one nation on the rest.

This is one of the hardest categories to quantify (in my view at least) since it is far more subjective than any of the others.

This is one of the hardest categories to quantify (in my view at least) since it is far more subjective than any of the others.

Yup! I also don't think that the other two resolutions are *exactly* what you'd call text book examples of what most of us assumed moral decency issues to be.

But that is what makes this category fun. It is like playing with fire.

Yup! I also don't think that the other two resolutions are *exactly* what you'd call text book examples of what most of us assumed moral decency issues to be.

But that is what makes this category fun. It is like playing with fire.

Actually - stopping lawyers suing people when the people are doing the best they can sounds exactly like what I would have thought Moral Decency would mean.

And - to some extent - allowing yourself to be locked up as a medical precaution, so that you don't infect half the known world with a disease - is also something that would come down to doing the "decent thing".

But I can see why some people would think that locking someone up who hasn't committed a crime, and stopping lawyers from doing their jobs, might not be morally decent.

I thinK I should try writing one of these. Genocide perhaps?

Wow - I am getting ideas now. But then again - it's 2:20am and maybe now is not the best time to try to work out how to save the world :}

I thinK I should try writing one of these. Genocide perhaps?

Wow - I am getting ideas now. But then again - it's 2:20am and maybe now is not the best time to try to work out how to save the world :}

We are badly in need of a Convention against Genocide, and there are enough nations paying attention that a draft could be proposed and maybe crafted into something worthwhile.

Moral Decency resolutions restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency (which game wise means nada ... I've gone to town in moderation about this). Genocide to me (just my opinion) would seem to better fit into a basic human right, since usually it means:

The systematic killing of all [blank] life.

[blank] could be a minority group or it could just be literally all. Usually it means targeting racial, tribal, religious, or national groups.

But this doesn't mean that a moral decency resolution couldn't deal with genocide.

I think a better one might be (and not something I would support) resolutions focusing on hate crimes. Or an even BETTER moral decency would be censorship of the press when showing hostages being beheaded. It would be a civil restriction on UN media groups if they simply were not allowed to air hostages being beheaded or tortured.

The fun thing with this idea is you are going to be attacked by both sides! People love murder and mayhem and sensationalism is what sells news. Hmmm ... if somebody else doesn't like this, I may someday, because I actually will admit that I don't like "easy" categories. The most fun I've had here was fighting for the rights of HIV high risk drug users! Talk about representing the "untoucables" of the world! But I half to think about this one (and I'm not claiming the idea or anything ... anybody can take it and run with it).

There are also some "Human Rights" classified Resolutions which are actually constructed, and worded as Moral Decency resolutions... these include...

Resolution #30 "Common Sense Act II"
Resolution #33 "No Embargoes on Medicine"
Resolution #54 "UN Educational Commitee"

(This is based off the chain of reason the author uses to attain his end goal)

[yes, I'm one of the minority who actually reads what I am voting for before voting... I'd guess however, most of the people who frequent the forums are in this minority]

[yes, I'm one of the minority who actually reads what I am voting for before voting... I'd guess however, most of the people who frequent the forums are in this minority]
I haven't read the rest of this topic, so pardon me if this has been covered before ... but I agree with Tekania. Only us Forum regulars can be counted on to fully read all the arguments before voting.


We're just morally superior, I reckon. :D

There are also some "Human Rights" classified Resolutions which are actually constructed, and worded as Moral Decency resolutions... these include...

Resolution #30 "Common Sense Act II"
Resolution #33 "No Embargoes on Medicine"
Resolution #54 "UN Educational Commitee"

(This is based off the chain of reason the author uses to attain his end goal)

[yes, I'm one of the minority who actually reads what I am voting for before voting... I'd guess however, most of the people who frequent the forums are in this minority]

Feel free to actually show us how the UN Educational Committee, No Embargoes on Medicine, or the Common Sense Act II are moral decency (i.e. reduce civil freedoms). I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but I do think this as as good a place as any to talk about what Moral Decency means to each of our governments. Afterall, this session is being recorded ...

*points to a swarm of vid-bots*

And yes, for the tech -? nations, my government has access to technomages whom can convert the recording into scrolls.

To be honest, I only support it if it has sound logic behind it. I find people typically use "moral decency" as a catch phrase for "swallow my religious beliefs and like it". I also find they usually cannot stand on their own and must rely solely on religious beliefs. I almost advise we be rid of the category altogether.

Well, for one, moral decency does not have to limit rights... in fact, it can be a standpoint to grant them...

I'll address each in turn...

NSUN Resolution #30


It is catagorized as "Human Rights"...

However, a pervue of the text, clearly indicated it is not granting rights to anyone, or protecting anyones rights, per se... In fact, it's posed to limit civil suits on the basis of it violating undisclosed "civil liberties" (contending one party on another, to develope a moral position on the matter)...

The formulaic construction is more in line with the other Moral Decency resolutions on the books, than the in-line Human Rights resolutions such as the UFC and UBR.

NSUN Resolution #33 is abit more vague, it does match some aspects of moral decency, however, it seems to be closer to social justice, now that I've looked at it again, but not "Human Rights"... as it grants no rights in the process of its operation... But merely places restrictions upon governments at war in lieu of fair treatment of individuals in medicine...

NSUN Res. #54 fits pretty well under Moral Decency or Social Justice, for the same reasons...

I'd say, from argumenative construction

1) Human Rights are declarative rights granted to all...
2) Moral Decency are definitive, arguing moral grounds in the balanace of ones rights against anothers.
and 3) Social Justice, seeks to repair discepancies incurred from social conflicts arrising from a applicable failure of previously declared Rights.

To be honest, I only support it if it has sound logic behind it. I find people typically use "moral decency" as a catch phrase for "swallow my religious beliefs and like it". I also find they usually cannot stand on their own and must rely solely on religious beliefs. I almost advise we be rid of the category altogether.

Well, just about every catagory is abused to one extent or another, moral decency just happens to fit more religious arguments (and this is not inclusive of judeo-christian views only, but other religions such as secular humanism and naturalism).

There are some resolution catagories which definitly, and rightly fit into such, and are valid, such as "outlawing pedophelia" or banning child pornography... I would even argue that "legalize prostitution" is moral decency (or at the least social justice, and not "human rights" as it is catagorized)

To be honest, I only support it if it has sound logic behind it. I find people typically use "moral decency" as a catch phrase for "swallow my religious beliefs and like it". I also find they usually cannot stand on their own and must rely solely on religious beliefs. I almost advise we be rid of the category altogether.

Two thoughts, of the four Moral Decency resolutions which of them did you (open to all) feel were motivated solely on religious beliefs?

For the record the Samaritans were actually a people, who are mentioned in the Christian Bible and are immortalized in the New Testament by a story in which one of these people, long considered the enemies of the Jewish people, is told (in the book of John) to be the only man to stop on a road and help a man who was mugged. Today in many English speaking nations the word "Samaritan" is used not in its original religious context, but is a word that is used to simply describe, "a person who gratuitously gives help or sympath to someone in distress" (as taken from my Random House College Dictionary). Anyway, I wanted to remind everybody that there are many words that have religious origins that over time no longer are used solely in a religious context. As the author of the Good Samaritan Laws resolution, I can assure you that the reference was in fact made to point to the American legal, not the J-C use of the word, as my nation (and person) are completely secular.

Well, for one, moral decency does not have to limit rights... in fact, it can be a standpoint to grant them...

I'll address each in turn...

NSUN Resolution #30


It is catagorized as "Human Rights"...

However, a pervue of the text, clearly indicated it is not granting rights to anyone, or protecting anyones rights, per se... In fact, it's posed to limit civil suits on the basis of it violating undisclosed "civil liberties" (contending one party on another, to develope a moral position on the matter)...

The formulaic construction is more in line with the other Moral Decency resolutions on the books, than the in-line Human Rights resolutions such as the UFC and UBR.

I'm looking at the text, and can honestly say that my government is in 100% agreement with your analysis of the Common Sense Act II. So much so that it is one of the few Human Rights resolutions that my government would have voted against (we had not joined the UN at the time, but consider our formal position to be no).

That said, if your nation were to proposal to repeal this resolution on the grounds that it is clearly a restriction of rights in the interest of decency, with the opinion that your nation or another nation (perhaps Fantasan which is still around) is something that my government would support as a technical motion.

Please consider repealing this resolution so we can reclassify it, because you are right ... this resolution is by no means a "Human Rights" issue.

Two thoughts, of the four Moral Decency resolutions which of them did you (open to all) feel were motivated solely on religious beliefs?

The ones that passed? None. But note how many have failed.

For the record the Samaritans were actually a people, who are mentioned in the Christian Bible and are immortalized in the New Testament by a story in which one of these people, long considered the enemies of the Jewish people, is told (in the book of John) to be the only man to stop on a road and help a man who was mugged. Today in many English speaking nations the word "Samaritan" is used not in its original religious context, but is a word that is used to simply describe, "a person who gratuitously gives help or sympath to someone in distress" (as taken from my Random House College Dictionary). Anyway, I wanted to remind everybody that there are many words that have religious origins that over time no longer are used solely in a religious context. As the author of the Good Samaritan Laws resolution, I can assure you that the reference was in fact made to point to the American legal, not the J-C use of the word, as my nation (and person) are completely secular.

I study the Bible and know quite a bit about the origins of certain terms. I was actually going to point out the source of the word to you until I saw you had done it, as well as the fact the way the word is used today (and even a lot back then) actually, despite the origin, is purely secular.

I would actually say, secular humanists have the greatest tendency to mis-classify "Moral Decency" resolutions as "Human Rights" on the basis of their self-denial that their beliefs are indeed religious.

"Religion" = A cause, principle, or activity persued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Religion does not neccessarily include a spiritual aspect to it... For example, the Republic is heavily devoted to the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophical models of society and government, and we would easily say that our persual of that is religious in nature (even though it's centered on our people, rather than some higher diety or some non-corporeal spirtual plane). On the flip side, a nation comprised of communists/marxist/libertaire/etc. who are in zeal following the precepts of their philosophical model, are also relgious, regardless if they accept it as being "religion" or not... But those in the pervue of secular humanism, are the most frequent to classify their principles as not being a religion, despite their zeal, and so, argue that certain points they raise, while clearly moral, are actually Human Rights (Humanism) rather than morality or social justice... Merely an observation.

I would actually say, secular humanists have the greatest tendency to mis-classify "Moral Decency" resolutions as "Human Rights" on the basis of their self-denial that their beliefs are indeed religious.

"Religion" = A cause, principle, or activity persued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


The problem here is then religion could be applied to anything. Sex, sleeping, eating, talking, voting (yes or no), etc.

While your government might like to use such a broad stroked definition of religion, perhaps to argue that anything it doesn't like is somebody else's religious belief ... my government uses the following definition:

Religion = a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

Religion need not be associated with zeal or devotion. Nor does an activity that is pursued with zeal or devotion become a religion.

For example, it is possible for somebody to like football (American soccer) so much that they schedule their lives around it. While many might say that football is his / her "religion", my government would classify it as his / her activity or interest, but football does not in this case necessarily define his / her basic set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

In fact, it is very likely that any two football fans may share the same devotion and love of the sport but have entirely different religious beliefs ... take the fictional "Iraqi" football team and then look at say a team from ... oh a fictional place called "Ireland". I would be that while the players have much in common, that these same players also have a very different set of core beliefs.

Secularism is fine, as long as you don't redefine religion to suit your needs and wash it down to being essentially nothing more than having a hobby or favorite activity. It can be that too, but it doesn't have to be.

The problem here is then religion could be applied to anything. Sex, sleeping, eating, talking, voting (yes or no), etc.

While your government might like to use such a broad stroked definition of religion, perhaps to argue that anything it doesn't like is somebody else's religious belief ... my government uses the following definition:

Religion = a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

Religion need not be associated with zeal or devotion. Nor does an activity that is pursued with zeal or devotion become a religion.

For example, it is possible for somebody to like football (American soccer) so much that they schedule their lives around it. While many might say that football is his / her "religion", my government would classify it as his / her activity or interest, but football does not in this case necessarily define his / her basic set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

In fact, it is very likely that any two football fans may share the same devotion and love of the sport but have entirely different religious beliefs ... take the fictional "Iraqi" football team and then look at say a team from ... oh a fictional place called "Ireland". I would be that while the players have much in common, that these same players also have a very different set of core beliefs.

Secularism is fine, as long as you don't redefine religion to suit your needs and wash it down to being essentially nothing more than having a hobby or favorite activity. It can be that too, but it doesn't have to be.

Well we also make a distinction of concepts, as well... religion, and religious world-view... Someone may be religious about soccer, but that is not neccessarily a teneted world-view as secular humanism, judeo-christian, naturalism, buddhism, etc. would be. (Someone following Hockey, soccer, american football, baseball, cricket, etc. would not use that as a jumping point to change the world)

Well we also make a distinction of concepts, as well... religion, and religious world-view... Someone may be religious about soccer, but that is not neccessarily a teneted world-view as secular humanism, judeo-christian, naturalism, buddhism, etc. would be. (Someone following Hockey, soccer, american football, baseball, cricket, etc. would not use that as a jumping point to change the world)

And though many people do in fact use phrases like "religious about X", that doesn't make that their religion, nor does that imply any rationality or irrationality to something that basically is describing a level of importance.

My point remains that secularism is perfectly fine, and by definition secular means apart from religion. Not "religious" (the adjective, not the noun) as shown in your example "religious about football", but religion itself.

What I think the danger is, is when one associates "zealot" with "religion". While there certainly are zealots who base their decisions on their religion, there are also individuals who display zeal (the definition of zealot) for many things that aren't based on religion. Again football comes to mind ... people who tend to get into fist fights over a mere football team or stab an opposing fan could IMHO fairly be described as being football / soccer zealots. (I'd say they are dangerous and in need of a new hobby when their zeal takes them into injuring other humans.)

And though many people do in fact use phrases like "religious about X", that doesn't make that their religion, nor does that imply any rationality or irrationality to something that basically is describing a level of importance.

My point remains that secularism is perfectly fine, and by definition secular means apart from religion. Not "religious" (the adjective, not the noun) as shown in your example "religious about football", but religion itself.

What I think the danger is, is when one associates "zealot" with "religion". While there certainly are zealots who base their decisions on their religion, there are also individuals who display zeal (the definition of zealot) for many things that aren't based on religion. Again football comes to mind ... people who tend to get into fist fights over a mere football team or stab an opposing fan could IMHO fairly be described as being football / soccer zealots. (I'd say they are dangerous and in need of a new hobby when their zeal takes them into injuring other humans.)

Actually, no it doesn't... secular means worldly or earthly as opposed to spiritual, religion in and of itself has secular aspects and offices (which is why I maintain my broadish definition of sorts of the term), when dealing, however with instituted operative religions, I treat them as religious world-views... (A religious world-view is a combination and culmination of ones views on anthropology, theology [and even atheists have a theology], and philosophy) So, to me, atheists following secular humanism, are just as adoptive of a religious world-view, as an orthodox jew, a roman catholic, a shiite, a buddhist or a mormon. Even though it may not be an institutional religion, it is still a religious world-view, as it is a set of applicable tennets that govern how the person reacts to, and operates within, the world as a whole.

Ooooh! It's too late for this. Suffice for me to say that I consider religion to be the worship of/following of a belief system that cannot be proven by rational scientific method.

as it is a set of applicable tennets that govern how the person reacts to, and operates within, the world as a whole.

This is an interesting idea, that atheism is a religious position; but isn't it just a set of moral guidelines that are unrelated to belief in a deity or divine influence?

Ooooh! It's too late for this. Suffice for me to say that I consider religion to be the worship of/following of a belief system that cannot be proven by rational scientific method.



This is an interesting idea, that atheism is a religious position; but isn't it just a set of moral guidelines that are unrelated to belief in a deity or divine influence?

Again, diety is not directly related to religion as a whole (there are plenty of religions that are independant of any direct view of a declared diety, and some can be spiritual or not). Atheism is generally adopted within the scope of a naturalistic or humanistic non-spiritual view of anthropology and theology (once again atheism is a theology [discourse about god]) and then connected together in a philosophical rule base. Most people of that group do not like being equated into that category, but mostly because of their denial of spirtualism, however, remember, spiritualism does not have to be directly connected inside religion... But their "world-view" is no different than any other world-view in its applicable funcion... I.E. their secular-humanism, or naturalism is performing the same function as buddhism, zen philosphy, orthodoxy, or any of the other plethora of religious world-views... IE their personal denial of the classification is not valid in lieu of the function it encompasses... religious world-view is a function that defines and guides peoples operation in the world.

Secularism is the opposite of spirtualism, and not religion...

IOW "religion" is a gender... it's a category title, encompassing -isms, but not an -ism in and of itself...

So your classification of a religious world view is a set of precepts that governs one's life?
Surely that means all 'moral codes' are religious world views.

Wait, I've got the wrong end of the stick. So, religions have the same function as Atheism or spiritualism, but go about it in different ways. Fair enough, but:
(there are plenty of religions that are independant of any direct view of a declared diety, and some can be spiritual or not).
what's an exapmle of a non spiritual religion? There may well be one I don't know of.

Secularism is the opposite of spiritualism
I'm not so sure about that. I would say that I am a scientist (not a real one yet, but in world view yes) and I am avowedly secular/atheist. Having said that I do have something of a spiritual side - by that I mean I find myself thinking about colour, or the distances involved in space travel, or 1.5 dimensional fractals, and I think these things are something beyond what I can comprehend, and I find them wonderful. This I would class as scientific spiritualism? Maybe my definition of spititualism is different from yours.

Jeez, I think I'll finish this tomorrow :D

So your classification of a religious world view is a set of precepts that governs one's life?
Surely that means all 'moral codes' are religious world views.

Wait, I've got the wrong end of the stick. So, religions have the same function as Atheism or spiritualism, but go about it in different ways. Fair enough, but:

what's an exapmle of a non spiritual religion? There may well be one I don't know of.


I'm not so sure about that. I would say that I am a scientist (not a real one yet, but in world view yes) and I am avowedly secular/atheist. Having said that I do have something of a spiritual side - by that I mean I find myself thinking about colour, or the distances involved in space travel, or 1.5 dimensional fractals, and I think these things are something beyond what I can comprehend, and I find them wonderful. This I would class as scientific spiritualism? Maybe my definition of spititualism is different from yours.

Jeez, I think I'll finish this tomorrow :D

A bit different, spiritualism is non-materialistic (not based within the realm of any quantified physicality) and opposite of secualism which is based on materialism and physicality...

Two primary non-spiritual religions (and both oriental) are Confucianism and Taoism (Secular Humanistic, and Secular Naturalistic in that order)... Another example of a non-diety related religion is Buddhism and Zen Buddhism, which are spiritual humanistic, and spiritual naturalistic religions... Wiccan is also a spiritual naturalistic religion...

Your view is most certainly secular and not spiritual, you may stand in awe of the universe, but it is an awe that is based on materialistic view (secular view) and not in awe from a non-physical view... Every religious view has its own secular and spiritualistic points (most have both, only a few lack one or the other). Historically, a religion which completely abandoned secularism in favor of spiritualism were an offshoot of the early christian sects, and encompassing aspects of some off shoots of greek philosophy, the Hermogenes, who believed, and operated wholly on the tennet that all matter is evil.... (literally they would be the closest anti- view of modern secular humanism)...

I will not support such resolutions unless they respect...oh yeah....you guessed it...national sovereignty!

IOW "religion" is a gender... it's a category title, encompassing -isms, but not an -ism in and of itself...

"Gender" refers to whether a person views themselves as male, female, or otherwise. It has nothing to do with religious beliefs beyond how those affect the views of the genders.

Secularism is the opposite of spirtualism, and not religion...

Now this is really the heart of how your government and my government disagree here, because we (the CCSM) use the following definition of secularism (remember it is your government which is talking about humanism, I've not mentioned that once until now) ...

Secular: of or preatining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal.

It fundamentally means detached from religion, so basically my government disagrees with your attempt to tell us that our use of the world to describe governments (and it is extremely common for governments to describe themselves as secular when there is a formalized separation of church and state) as being secular means they are still religious, when in fact, I think your earlier point was trying to connect the zeal or passion to which any government approaches different issues.

Now this is really the heart of how your government and my government disagree here, because we (the CCSM) use the following definition of secularism (remember it is your government which is talking about humanism, I've not mentioned that once until now) ...

Couldn't the definition of words be a trump card for anybody to sit here and argue for any position they so choose?

Perhaps, it's time for all UN members to start looking at a bigger picture rather than how their limited little country views the world...

The ones that passed? None. But note how many have failed.


Only 4 Moral Decency resoutions have reached the UN floor. Three of the 4 passed, the remaining one failed (and it had a close vote). Up until Oct. 2004, there was only a single Moral Decency resolution (and with some rare frequency, some UN members expressed their dislike of the entire category).

A full text should be linked above. They are worth reading. Actually all 4 of the resolutions are easy to read.


I study the Bible and know quite a bit about the origins of certain terms. I was actually going to point out the source of the word to you until I saw you had done it, as well as the fact the way the word is used today (and even a lot back then) actually, despite the origin, is purely secular.

For those of you wondering why religion is being talked about in a thread concerned with "Moral Decency", while talking about the four existing resolutions Tekania hinted at the religious connection ... er, Tekania, correct me if I'm wrong here. :) Anyway, I responded basically saying that although one of the four resolutions did in fact have a religious based *name* that the resolution itself isn't really based in traditional religious morals. DemonLordEnigma also reaffirmed this (with the above quote), and actually mentioned applied the word "secular" to the way I described the use of the word Samaritan (which I appreciated the reply DLE -- and I certainly feel that religious or not, that everybody should read some parts of the Bible since some of its stories and language have creaped into many parts of the secular world). :)

Anyway, it seems clear to me that talking about the motivation behind moral decency resolutions should actually get into talks about morals, religion / secular beliefs, and perhaps cultural belief systems.

My government feels that knowing why a resolution is proposed is actually helpful in understanding what it is proposing to do.

Your view is most certainly secular and not spiritual, you may stand in awe of the universe, but it is an awe that is based on materialistic view (secular view) and not in awe from a non-physical view... Every religious view has its own secular and spiritualistic points (most have both, only a few lack one or the other). Historically, a religion which completely abandoned secularism in favor of spiritualism were an offshoot of the early christian sects, and encompassing aspects of some off shoots of greek philosophy, the Hermogenes, who believed, and operated wholly on the tennet that all matter is evil.... (literally they would be the closest anti- view of modern secular humanism)...

Yeah, I can follow that. I am in awe of things that I can't understand, but I feel that these things are nevertheless rational and logical.
Thanks Tek', you've really made me think. :)

"Gender" refers to whether a person views themselves as male, female, or otherwise. It has nothing to do with religious beliefs beyond how those affect the views of the genders.


Gender is a kind or type category, it's usage as a term for sexual identity is derivative, not absolute...

Now this is really the heart of how your government and my government disagree here, because we (the CCSM) use the following definition of secularism (remember it is your government which is talking about humanism, I've not mentioned that once until now) ...

Secular: of or preatining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal.

It fundamentally means detached from religion, so basically my government disagrees with your attempt to tell us that our use of the world to describe governments (and it is extremely common for governments to describe themselves as secular when there is a formalized separation of church and state) as being secular means they are still religious, when in fact, I think your earlier point was trying to connect the zeal or passion to which any government approaches different issues.

Secular= worldly rather than spiritual, derivation from ME originating in OF seculer, derived from latin saeculum, "of an age, of a world".

This is not to say that everything "secular" is religious, but merely that something classified as secular is not neccesarily seperate from religion... And it's not my definition or yours, it's the historical definition of the use of that word through time (etymology is a lovely thing) within the context of english and the languages it is derivated from... The Republic's government is certainly "secular" in nature, ie "worldly"... but we don't make the false pretense that "religion and government are completely seperate"... the entire idea of that is false, we conclude that within the scope, all religious views have equal footing, and it is not the place of the secular (worldly) government to make laws in relation to religious practice, nor the place of the religious institutions to rule over the present secular (worldly) government.... Our view of the relation of the two is more akin to a serperation of powers and authorotative scopes, rather than the false idea that one can be completely disconnected from the other.

For example, if one were to pose the idea of mandating some form of public school prayer, we would dismiss the issue... on the flip side, if one were to raise the issue to ban any prayers in school, we would equally dismiss the issue. (The principle that government will make no law in regards to religion or its practice by people)... Which is the true nature of the principle of "seperation"...

Secular= worldly rather than spiritual, derivation from ME originating in OF seculer, derived from latin saeculum, "of an age, of a world".


For the record, that is a useful definition. :)


but we don't make the false pretense that "religion and government are completely seperate"... the entire idea of that is false, we conclude that within the scope, all religious views have equal footing, and it is not the place of the secular (worldly) government to make laws in relation to religious practice, nor the place of the religious institutions to rule over the present secular (worldly) government.... Our view of the relation of the two is more akin to a serperation of powers and authorotative scopes, rather than the false idea that one can be completely disconnected from the other.

It may surprise you, but actually my government agrees.

People can belong to a government and a religion, perhaps even an organized church or sect or whatever. Even if the government is based on a worldly model, the people in that government may still have religious roots and may act through religious motivations.

But here is where we might disagree ... the pratical use of the word secular implies that the government does not favour or adopt any one religion. I'm thinking your separation of powers example is pretty good, but would extend it to see that in the context I'm using, church groups can still attempt to influence governments the same as any other group ... but in some secular societies, like the CCSM, we tax churches the same as other organizations too.

(Got to love that daily issue! I got it just this weekend.) :)

For the record, that is a useful definition. :)



It may surprise you, but actually my government agrees.

People can belong to a government and a religion, perhaps even an organized church or sect or whatever. Even if the government is based on a worldly model, the people in that government may still have religious roots and may act through religious motivations.

But here is where we might disagree ... the pratical use of the word secular implies that the government does not favour or adopt any one religion. I'm thinking your separation of powers example is pretty good, but would extend it to see that in the context I'm using, church groups can still attempt to influence governments the same as any other group ... but in some secular societies, like the CCSM, we tax churches the same as other organizations too.

(Got to love that daily issue! I got it just this weekend.) :)

Seperation of powers principle applied into the realm and understanding that all institutionalized religions generally have their own government, and ther rulership of a church is left within the scope of its own members, with no outside influence or legislating by the national government... anymore than they would legislate upon us... Now, in the principle of people of religious leanings operating in government, such is understood, and is an existing principle of freedom of religion, people exercizing their beliefs independantly within the Republic is a given principle of a truly free society. The principle clause is that of no law.... which encompassing any form of legislation, for or against, upon the people as a whole as towards religious exercize... We generally, however, do not tax any religious institution, mostly in lieu of most of their not-for-profit status... We do tax individuals, and we consider a tax upon any not-for-profit group, who inherantly receive their monies through voluntary donations from individuals (who as aforementioned are already taxed) as a double-tax.... so it is all in lieu of their status as towards profit based, or not-for-profit... so there are many groups and institutions that are not taxed, but it is not based on them being religious or not, but merely their income state. We do however require that officers payed by not-for-profit institutions, be taxed.

In view of rule, we reffer to operations by institutional governments to make law or rule over the general government, and not platform positions by individuals in governments made from their religious views.