NationStates Jolt Archive

This new proposal must fail. Not only is it vague in both language ("should," for example, as opposed to 'will') and allows for an innumerable amount of loopholes, but look closely at this:

"ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another."

Governments may legislate that a person may follow any religion that they choose or no religion at all, which is fully acceptable, but this resolution is trying to legislate belief. By saying that no religion is no more correct than another, that would be violating a person's civil liberties to believe that his or her religion is better. The government must protect people if they choose not to believe, but this is an attack on those that do believe and will do nothing but tarnish civil freedoms by legally forcing them to educe their personal beliefs. It's just plain communism.
Let everyone know before they cast an uninformed vote.

There is already a topic on this proposal, and your arguement is flawed in that it assumes the resolution applies to the singular person instead of the country as a whole.

There is already a topic on this proposal, and your arguement is flawed in that it assumes the resolution applies to the singular person instead of the country as a whole.
A. Now there are two posts on this topic.

B. If it applies as international law, it applies to all citizens of U.N. nations. Thus, my contention stands.

A. Now there are two posts on this topic.

B. If it applies as international law, it applies to all citizens of U.N. nations. Thus, my contention stands.


"There is already a thread on this proposal" means that the proposal is already being debated in another thread, and you should take your arguments there, as opposed to creating a new thread... Since multiple thread creation on on-floor resolutions is against the forum rules...

I would say the resolution is deeply flawed in that clearly some beliefs and religions are wrong or worse. If a religion advocated hate or condemns homosexuality, how would the resolution address it? Furthermore, are we saying that the Nazi belief system is as valid as Enviromentalism or Christianity? Clearly there is a hierarchy of acceptableness for belief and I'm not sure anyone is arguing that the UN should sanction and encourage the absolute belief in anything....

The resolution has the potential to create a lot of problems within itself.

A. Now there are two posts on this topic.

B. If it applies as international law, it applies to all citizens of U.N. nations. Thus, my contention stands.

A. Multiple threads on a topic are, as stated, against forum rules. If you can't read the rules, don't post in the forum.

B. Nowhere in there does it state the people have to change their own personal beliefs or that they must agree with it. It is, at best, giving a definition, and definitions are easily argued over and ignored. Therefore, your contention is false.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=373945