NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey, everyone. I've recently submitted a proposal to the UN for consideration. The action done by the proposal will simply not allow the United Nations to interfere in the rights of each nation and citizen to make their own choices about religion. (no theocracies will be hurt through the passing of this resolution)

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
STRONG effect on Furtherment of Democracy
Proposed by Mousebumples

Acknowledging that UN member nations are free to make their own governmental decisions regarding the legalization or restriction of particular religions within their own nation,

Acknowledging that separation of church and state is a basic tenet of democracy, as seen in the First Amendment of the US Constitution,

Acknowledging that it is by separating the governmental process from the personal religious beliefs that decisions can best be made that will ensure fairness and equality for all citizens and member nations,

Acknowledging the previously passed UN Resolution, Religious Tolerance, passed on Saturday, June 21, 2003, through which UN members have promoted "religious tolerance" and "a greater understanding" and also have "opposed all wars fought in the name of God and religion",

Be it resolved that the United Nations will not infringe upon the right of each member state to make their own decisions regarding religion within their own borders, in accordance with Article 1 of the Rights and Duties of UN Nations,

Be it also resolved that the United Nations will not promote any particular religion over another, or promote particular tenets of a specific religion over another.If anyone has any suggestions or editing remarks, I'd be more than happy to listen to them and perhaps use them for future versions of the proposal, should resubmission be necessary.

Also, if you are a UN Delegate, I'd appreciate it if you'd consider approving the proposal. At the moment, it's at the top of Page 18, and due to expire on Thursday.

Thanks, everyone!
~Lizzy Hall~
Benevolent Leader of the United Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
Monkey Island Delegate to the United Nations

If a government can make decisions as to religious practice by individuals, then the idea that there is a "seperation" as such, is false. To quote the aforementioned document...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercize thereof;"

Seperation is a two edged sword... The simple fact is, if a government truly supports "Seperation" then said government will not make any law in regards to religion, either for or opposed.

If a government can make decisions as to religious practice by individuals, then the idea that there is a "seperation" as such, is false. To quote the aforementioned document...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercize thereof;"

Seperation is a two edged sword... The simple fact is, if a government truly supports "Seperation" then said government will not make any law in regards to religion, either for or opposed.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Or, rather, I'm not sure I understand how what you're saying affects this proposal.

Under this proposal, individual nations should still be able to make their own decisions regarding religion governance in their own nations. That was intended, as democracy cannot be forced upon all UN member nations.

The separation I'm calling for in this resolution is just one that would separate the United Nations from the individual decision making (regarding religion) that should be left up to each member nation. I tried to avoid taking a for or against stance (regarding religion) within the proposal - preferring to leave that decision as well up to the individual member nation.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point - in which case, I encourage you to further elaborate. I understand that separation is a double-edged sword, as you said. However, when all I'm asking for - regarding religion - is that the United Nations not make any laws affecting my nation (when it comes to religion), I can't say I see how that's applicable, really.

Still, thank you very much for sharing your thoughts.
~Lizzy Hall~

Hey, everyone. I've recently submitted a proposal to the UN for consideration. The action done by the proposal will simply not allow the United Nations to interfere in the rights of each nation and citizen to make their own choices about religion. (no theocracies will be hurt through the passing of this resolution)

The resolution appears to be unsure of what it is trying to achieve.

At first glance it appears to want to take religion out of government. (The phrase "church and state" for examlpe). Which, to me at least, would indicate that it will stop religion in any form of government within the UN.

And then it goes on to say "Acknowledging that it is by separating the governmental process from the personal religious beliefs that decisions can best be made that will ensure fairness and equality for all citizens and member nations" which would also imply you want to take religion out the government of all member states.

But then it says "Be it resolved that the United Nations will not infringe upon the right of each member state to make their own decisions regarding religion within their own borders, in accordance with Article 1 of the Rights and Duties of UN Nations" which is pretty much an open ended endorsement of anyone having a religious government.

Then there are two other problems.

The first is the reference to the US Constitution. The USA doesn't exist in this world, so it can't have a constitution, let alone a first amendment.

Secondly, if I am reading it right, this proposal is endeavouring to limit the future actions of the UN in regard to it's members. Which I think is against the game rules, and so against the rules of the UN. But if I am reading it wrong you can pretty much ignore that.

My main confusion lies in what it is trying to achieve.

The resolution appears to be unsure of what it is trying to achieve.

At first glance it appears to want to take religion out of government. (The phrase "church and state" for examlpe). Which, to me at least, would indicate that it will stop religion in any form of government within the UN.
My aim was to take religion out of *UN* government. When I previously mentioned my idea for this proposal on this board, someone brought up the fact that the UN should not be able to change the type of government (i.e. a theocracy) within a UN member nation. There are UN nations with a Islamic base, others with a Christian base, others with an athiest, agnostic, or Buddhist base. For that reason, I was trying to take religion out of UN law-making procedures. (which it shouldn't be involved with anyhow, according to the "Rights and Duties of UN Nations," which I referenced in the resolution.

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.

And then it goes on to say "Acknowledging that it is by separating the governmental process from the personal religious beliefs that decisions can best be made that will ensure fairness and equality for all citizens and member nations" which would also imply you want to take religion out the government of all member states.
If that wording is confusing, I can certainly clarify a bit more, if/when I resubmit this resolution. What I meant is that removing religion from the governmental process would ensure fairness and equality for all UN member nations and citizens within those same nations since the UN would not be making laws that restrict or favor certain religions in their particular nation.

For example, a complete ban on abortion goes against the beliefs of some Muslims. According to Sharia law, abortion is allowed under certain circumstances - i.e. when the health of the mother is at risk. By completely outlawing abortion, Muslims would not be able to act in accordance with their religion in this circumstance. (of course, then we get into a slippery slope argument - what if one religion says you can kill all red-heads because they're the spawn of Satan or some other nonsense like that ... But this was just the first example I could think of)

But then it says "Be it resolved that the United Nations will not infringe upon the right of each member state to make their own decisions regarding religion within their own borders, in accordance with Article 1 of the Rights and Duties of UN Nations" which is pretty much an open ended endorsement of anyone having a religious government.
Yes, that's true. However, nations can have governments based in *differing* religions (my nation versus your nation, for example, could be based on two completely different and separation religions) Which was another reason why I didn't want the UN interfering with the religious choices of each individual UN member nation.

Then there are two other problems.

The first is the reference to the US Constitution. The USA doesn't exist in this world, so it can't have a constitution, let alone a first amendment.
True, but in the world that we are all familiar with, the US Constitution is a good reference when it comes to democracy. The UN itself is based around democracy, the resolution works towards the furtherment of democracy, so I thought it worked. I know that in terms of RP'ing in the UN, mentioning the US Constitution is a big "no-no," but it was an important point in my opinion all the same.

Secondly, if I am reading it right, this proposal is endeavouring to limit the future actions of the UN in regard to it's members. Which I think is against the game rules, and so against the rules of the UN. But if I am reading it wrong you can pretty much ignore that.
I contacted the moderators about that possibility myself since someone else wondered if it would be against game rules by limiting future actions of the UN. Here's what I got in response:
There isn't really a limitation in UN power there any more than any other proposal (that tends to make opposing thoughts repeal proposals). Go for it.

My main confusion lies in what it is trying to achieve.
I hoped I helped clarify that a bit. If you have any suggestions for wording changes to make what I'm trying to accomplish more clear, I'd love to hear them. Even though I did write this resolution with the help my my fellow region members (and even some regional allies), we all knew the aim from the beginning. So it's certainly possible that things are unclear to those who were not a part of the proposal writing process.

Thanks again for your input and feedback. And if you're still confused, I can try to clarify some things again.

Yours in peace and friendship,
~Lizzy Hall~
Monkey Island Delegate to the United Nations

Moosebumples...

To assist, since we can't use the US Constitution, at least not realistically, given that the Tekanian constitution is based mostly off of said document, you can use the Amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Tekania..



Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free nation, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the county and dominion wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty tekles, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the Republic, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the Republic by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the counties, are reserved to the counties respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XI
If any citizen of the Republic shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the Republic, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.

Amendment XII
Section 1. The right of citizens of the Republic to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the Republic or by any county on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, or sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIII
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several counties within seven years from the date of its submission to the counties by the Congress.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon onfirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Delegates his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Delegates their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Delegates his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Delegates their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Okay - I will make a note of that fact and will update that, if/when I need to resubmit the proposal. Thanks! :)
~Lizzy Hall~

I rather like the idea. That means that in order for the UN to pass future resolutions restricting how member nations deal with religion, this resolution would have to be repealed first.

or promote particular tenets of a specific religion over another.

Well, I certainly hope the UN will promote the tenets of Island Buddhism over those of Christian Nazism. ;)

I think TilEnca is right in supposing that the proposal is against rules, because it would seem to limit the ability of the UN to exercise control over its members. On the other hand, each resolution does that at least a little bit: e.g. passing a resolution about certain political/trade freedoms would prevent the UN from passing another resolution to restrict those same freedoms without prior repeal of said resolution. So maybe, it is not as much against the rules as it seems at first glance. :confused: :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes: :confused:

I think TilEnca is right in supposing that the proposal is against rules, because it would seem to limit the ability of the UN to exercise control over its members. On the other hand, each resolution does that at least a little bit: e.g. passing a resolution about certain political/trade freedoms would prevent the UN from passing another resolution to restrict those same freedoms without prior repeal of said resolution. So maybe, it is not as much against the rules as it seems at first glance. :confused: :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes: :confused:

Agreed, all resolutions, inherantly, restrict the power of the NSUN...

For example, Legalize Euthanasia, restricts the NSUN from passing legislation to make it illegal without first repealing... Same with Abortion Rights, the UFC and UBR, etc.

IOW. The excuse that a resolutions is "restrictive", while it seems to be accepted, is honestly as invalid as the "national sovereignty issue"... its just while one is frowned upon, the other seems to get accepted... The only truly valid reasons to invalidate proposals is under the basis of improper language/spelling, game mechanics, or invalidated category.

My aim was to take religion out of *UN* government.


Which I haven o problem with.


For that reason, I was trying to take religion out of UN law-making procedures. (which it shouldn't be involved with anyhow, according to the "Rights and Duties of UN Nations," which I referenced in the resolution.

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.


Again I have no problem with that - it makes sense.


If that wording is confusing, I can certainly clarify a bit more, if/when I resubmit this resolution. What I meant is that removing religion from the governmental process would ensure fairness and equality for all UN member nations and citizens within those same nations since the UN would not be making laws that restrict or favor certain religions in their particular nation.


Ah. It makes sense, but I don't see how you can ever hope to do that. I will explain why in after the next part.


For example, a complete ban on abortion goes against the beliefs of some Muslims. According to Sharia law, abortion is allowed under certain circumstances - i.e. when the health of the mother is at risk. By completely outlawing abortion, Muslims would not be able to act in accordance with their religion in this circumstance. (of course, then we get into a slippery slope argument - what if one religion says you can kill all red-heads because they're the spawn of Satan or some other nonsense like that ... But this was just the first example I could think of)


Firstly I like red-heads, so I am pretty sure I don't want to support killing them :}

But on a more serious note - if you can't outlaw abortion due to Sharia Law, then what if there is a religion that says "you can not kill a fetus come what may" as part of its doctorine? That means you can't make abortion legal in every UN member nation because it would violate that law.



Yes, that's true. However, nations can have governments based in *differing* religions (my nation versus your nation, for example, could be based on two completely different and separation religions) Which was another reason why I didn't want the UN interfering with the religious choices of each individual UN member nation.


Ah - that makes more sense.


True, but in the world that we are all familiar with, the US Constitution is a good reference when it comes to democracy. The UN itself is based around democracy, the resolution works towards the furtherment of democracy, so I thought it worked. I know that in terms of RP'ing in the UN, mentioning the US Constitution is a big "no-no," but it was an important point in my opinion all the same.


This has been sorted out by someone else, and - btw - I could not tell you what the First Amendment says to save my life. I know it speaks to freedom of speach, and the seperation of church and state, but I am not from the US and haven't studied the amendments or the constitution itself. Just a word of warning for the future :}



There isn't really a limitation in UN power there any more than any other proposal (that tends to make opposing thoughts repeal proposals). Go for it.

I have read this four times, and it still makes no sense - especially the bit in brackets!

[QUOTE]
I hoped I helped clarify that a bit. If you have any suggestions for wording changes to make what I'm trying to accomplish more clear, I'd love to hear them. Even though I did write this resolution with the help my my fellow region members (and even some regional allies), we all knew the aim from the beginning. So it's certainly possible that things are unclear to those who were not a part of the proposal writing process.


Honestly? The UN is not a state. So I would change the name of it to something that more accurately reflects what you are attempting to do. Because when I saw the title I honestly thought you were trying to stop all religion in all governments.

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.
This article specifically permits the formation of theocratic governments. Also Communist, Anarchist (which appear to not actually be a government), Deist, Atheist, Pantheist, Humanist, or whatever form the nation chooses. Using Article 1 to limit the choice of government type goes directly against the spirit and letter of Rights and Duties of UN States.

This does not limit the nationstates themselves from choosing to provide separation, but it cannot be done on an international basis and still comply with existing law. Sorry, this one is illegal.


MJ Donovan, CEO, retired,
The Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeterian Corporate States
Author of UN Resolution 49, Rights and Duties of UN States.

This does not limit the nationstates themselves from choosing to provide separation, but it cannot be done on an international basis and still comply with existing law. Sorry, this one is illegal.


I don't think that is what the proposal is intending to do. I believe the author wants to take religion out of the UN government, as opposed to national government.

(2) Acknowledging that separation of church and state is a basic tenet of democracy, as seen in the First Amendment of the US Constitution,

(3) Acknowledging that it is by separating the governmental process from the personal religious beliefs that decisions can best be made that will ensure fairness and equality for all citizens and member nations,
To expand a bit on my previous post, it's these two statements that cause the problem. While we agree with the core concepts of both statements insofar as Frisbeeterian law is concerned, we do not consider either statement to be axiomatically true.

(2) Religion has as much business in a democracy as does education or politics. How much of each is something the nations have to choose.
(3) That's one definition of fairness. A person of faith might consider that argument weighted to the side of faithlessness. It all depends on which side of the aisle you call your own.

We agree with these principles as a nation, and Frisbeeterian law does not accord religion any special rights or privledges. Churches pay the same taxes that stores and manufacturers do. That works for us. Our neighbors might run their nation from within the abbey or cathedral walls, as is their right. A solution that works for us would not be fair to them, and vice versa.

This cannot be made international law. It reflects one particular viewpoint at the expense of all others. We cannot support this proposal.

I don't think that is what the proposal is intending to do. I believe the author wants to take religion out of the UN government, as opposed to national government.
If so, the same argument applies. If the Head of State of a Theocracy wishes to plead her case before the UN, she cannot be required to make her plea in specifically non-religious terms. It is not representative of her nation or her national issues to do so.

In a democracy like the UN, the side with the most votes wins. If that's based on a religious choices, so be it.

It reflects one particular viewpoint at the expense of all others. We cannot support this proposal.

That's what every resolution ever passed does- reflect one particular viewpoint at the expense of all others. The question is how restrictive the resolution is and how much national soveriegnty will have to be given up if it passes. As far as I can tell, the only powers it is restricting is that of the UN.


As a side note, how long will it be before passing any new resolution is impossible without first repealing one or more previous resolutions? Or are we already there?

That's what every resolution ever passed does- reflect one particular viewpoint at the expense of all others.
Let me expand then.

"It reflects one particular viewpoint at the expense of all others without a clear international mandate other than 'my way is better than your way'"

Free Trade and environmental resolutions can point to statistics and graphs and "best estimates". Human Rights and Moral Decency resolutions can point to a widely shared definition of the human condition. Proposals about The Furtherment of Democracy have some of the most disparate and difficult elements to contend with, and they need to be clearly and unambiguously stated.

This proposal is anything but clear and unambiguous, basing its premise on two arguable assumptions, one of them illegal in this context. I support the premise itself, but not as a matter of international law. If it takes 10 posts just to agree on what it's trying to cover, it's too difficult to understand as a passed resolution.
how long will it be before passing any new resolution is impossible without first repealing one or more previous resolutions?
Pretty darn close in my opinion. Time to get the repeals machinery oiled and get rid of some of the more restrictive stuff that's on the books. All law is a matter of fine-tuning to meet the needs of the people and the government. It's just a bit more restrictive here than elsewhere.

It seems to us that this resolution is pitting the notion of national sovereignty against the notion of universal human rights.


True enough, UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #49, Rights and Duties of UN States does say in 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.”

And The Universal Bill of Rights (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #26, says in its 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 proposal seems to suggest that national sovereignty allows nations (UN nations, in this case) to outlaw religions if they choose -- or at the very least to substantially privilege one religion, to the point of the practical restraint of others.


The central idea of Universal Human Rights is that there are some human rights that precede national sovereignty. It is not a trivial idea; it forever changes the relations between people and state, if you accept it.


Are nations in the NationStates UN allowed (or since the UN has no police power, sanctioned) to practice or promote slavery? Imprison or execute their citizens without some fair trial? Seize citizen’s property without the same? Close media outlets at the pleasure of the government?

All these things are within “national sovereignty”, but are contrary to accepted notions of universal civil and human rights. The practice of religion (not merely your belief hidden in your own closet) is also one of the generally accepted human rights. (As per the NationStates Universal Bill of Rights, or the real life Universal Bill of Rights.)


The idea that there are “rights” which all people, no matter what their local government thinks, are entitled to, is an idea that can be argued. It is a big idea with big implications.


We believe that the NationStates UN, by passing the Universal Bill of Rights, has concluded that in NationStates (perhaps contrary to what the “Rights and Duties of UN States” resolution seems to suggest) UN nations are held to a higher standard than mere national sovereignty; that UN nations in NationStates are obliged to recognize the existence of universal human rights, and that these rights exist at a higher level than the rights of individual nations.


It is a serious argument, and we come down (as we think the NS United Nations already has) on the side of universal human and civil rights – and religious freedom, which we both think and believe that this proposal threatens.


Think for a moment.
Do you believe in rights which no nation should be able to deny?
Or that national governments (no matter how they have arisen) have some “right” that supercedes yours?

This proposal claims the second of those.

Reason & Compassion

Acknowledging that separation of church and state is a basic tenet of democracy, as seen in the First Amendment of the US Constitution,



NYET!

A] Dunbarrow is not the United States
and
B] Dunbarrow is not a democrazy state, we're a feodal fiefdom.

We will deal harshly with democrazies who have hidden weapons of mass destruction! :mp5:

Why can't the UN decide to voluntarily delimit its own powers? God did that, so it ought to be good enough for the UN.

Why can't the UN decide to voluntarily delimit its own powers?

Except this resolution (it got enough approvals) violates The Universal Bill of Human Rights Resolution.

If you want to repeal our Rights, vote for this.

This should be voted down by every nation that believes people have freedoms that the government cannot take away.

It takes freedom from the people and gives it to the Government. Vote NO.

Hi Lizzy,

Just so you know, there is no 'separation of church and state' in the US Constitution. The First Amendment says that Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion and no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Thus, in the United States, it's perfectly constitutional for the town government to acknowledge the 90% of the town's residents who are Christian by putting up a Christmas tree, or to help out an organization (Boy Scouts, the Presbyterian Church, and so on) which does good works, or to have the motto: "In God We Trust" etc. etc. etc.

Government may work with religious groups of any sort in the US; it may not establish a particular state religion.

My suggestion would be to change your resolution to actually reflect what the US Consitution says.

Best,

The Holy Emperor of Nicod

Also, separation of church and state is NOT a basic tenet of democracy. In a democracy, the majority can choose that the state endorse whatever religion the majority wants. Even in the United States, we can amend the constitution democratically to have it say whatever we want.

You are confused because the United States is more than a simple democracy. As in our Declaration of INdependence, the United States posits the existence of certain 'unalienable' rights, which stem from our Creator.

Best,

The Emperor of Nicod

Irrelevant. Referencing the United States Constitution isn't allowed in proposals anyway.

Just so you know, there is no 'separation of church and state' in the US Constitution. The First Amendment says that Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion and no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Thus, in the United States, it's perfectly constitutional for the town government to acknowledge the 90% of the town's residents who are Christian by putting up a Christmas tree, or to help out an organization (Boy Scouts, the Presbyterian Church, and so on) which does good works, or to have the motto: "In God We Trust" etc. etc. etc.

Government may work with religious groups of any sort in the US; it may not establish a particular state religion.

My suggestion would be to change your resolution to actually reflect what the US Consitution says.

Funny. I think you'll find Jefferson and Madison disagree. They would have gone apeshit if someone wanted the national motto to be 'In God We Trust'

Funny. I think you'll find Jefferson and Madison disagree. They would have gone apeshit if someone wanted the national motto to be 'In God We Trust'
OOC:
Presumably that's why they didn't have that as the national motto.

(just in case someone missed that) ;)

Delegate form Vojlovica:

Church and State couldnt get seperated. We must defend our Christianity Universe and every Volk has his Religion.

OOC: Yeah, "In God We Trust" was borrowed from the last stanza of the Star Spangled Banner... back in the 1950's.... funny, the US has not had "In God We Trust" as a national motto alot longer than it has had it... However, it is not the official motto, it's an added motto, the official motto remains "E Pluribus Unum" (Keeping with the tradition of mottos being in Latin), 'Out of many, one'

Could somebody explain to me how this proposal if passed would effect Holy nations, who do support god.