NationStates Jolt Archive

I am thinking of putting together a proposal to ban cross burning in the UN, and was wondering if anybody chanced upon a past proposal similar to this...if you know, or are sitting at home with nothing better to do than sift through 35 pages of proposals, or have monitored this site from day 1 and have a photographic memory...well you get the point...

I don't recall, but I also don't see the point of this resolution being directed by the UN. It seems to me that it would be more properly directed by single Nations and their appropriate governing offices.

I am thinking of putting together a proposal to ban cross burning in the UN, and was wondering if anybody chanced upon a past proposal similar to this...if you know, or are sitting at home with nothing better to do than sift through 35 pages of proposals, or have monitored this site from day 1 and have a photographic memory...well you get the point...

Be careful not to make it too specific to real life occurences. NationStates is played stricly as a role-playing game by some nations, and they might have neither racial differences, crosses, or fire in their role played universe. Besides that, a reasonably general proposal tends to have a larger base of supporters, making the approving and such much easier.

I don't believe there have been any passed resolutions describing this sort of thing, except several which would make it mandatory you maintain racial equality (I think) in your nation. If there are similar proposals out there, it doesn't matter. They're probably poorly-written or unadvertised, and won't become resolutions any time soon, and hence, they aren't binding.

Afterthought:

I have decided NOT to post any sort of resolution to the UN, for it will surely get lost among all of the pointless, repetetive and poorly-written (not to mention vague and ambiguous) proposals and have no effect whatsoever on me or my standings in nationstates.

I would also like to include that cross burning is not strictly race-based, as many people would believe, and I do not consider it free speech by our modern standards.

It would be an illegal proposal - Freedom of Religion.

Ok get one thing straight

A band of KKK guys in white hoods dancing around a burning cross is NOT a religion.

It was fabricated in the 1800's so that these KKK guys could go around and harass, abuse, kill and lynch other people.

In short, it's BS, and everybody with half a wit could see right through it. The religious ceremonies are nothing but veneer for an ulterior motive. If you see a cross burning in your front lawn with a bunch of guys in white costumes dancing around it, and you happened to be Catholic or black, would you sit there and marvel about how free our country is? Personally I would go get my shotgun if i had one.

Ok get one thing straight

A band of KKK guys in white hoods dancing around a burning cross is NOT a religion.

It was fabricated in the 1800's so that these KKK guys could go around and harass, abuse, kill and lynch other people.

In short, it's BS, and everybody with half a wit could see right through it. The religious ceremonies are nothing but veneer for an ulterior motive. If you see a cross burning in your front lawn with a bunch of guys in white costumes dancing around it, and you happened to be Catholic or black, would you sit there and marvel about how free our country is? Personally I would go get my shotgun if i had one.


You don't have one?

But my arguement comes from - "Why should the cross be specifically protected?" That would be setting one religious symbol above others, which is illegal as per UN Resolutions.

Now, if you put up a resolution of "No religious symbol may be burned except as part of a religious ritual or as required by a religions law" (Voodoo is an accepted religion), you're going in the right direction.

Then again, if someone says "Burning things is part of the worship of Flambee", you have a problem again.

See?

Banning cross burning?

What if it's part of a UN nation's national religion to burn the cross?

Banning cross burning?

What if it's part of a UN nation's national religion to burn the cross?Bingo.

Banning cross burning?

What if it's part of a UN nation's national religion to burn the cross?

It's not a religious aspect, but a holiday celebration in my nation. At one time this may have come from religious ceremonies, but that was thousands of years in the past.

The crosses are built using your typical T shape, only with a half-circle covering the top-three prongs (or whatever they are called). Then it is covered in a flamable liquid, gasoline was popular while iit was still available, and set on fire. The holiday is the Karsonat Pendel, the "Celebration of Freedom's Reign." It should be noted the crosses strangely resemble a few derelict ships we have come across, but a correlation has yet to be made.

My point: There can be reasons not related to hatred or religious belief for burning crosses. In this case, a cultural identity practice.

I think that the proposal should be along the lines of banning "the burning of anything without license or permission to do so (e.g bonfire night).

This covers book-burnings, the burning of another religion's icons and so on. A cross itself bears no significance, a crucifix however is of 'holy' import and thus a bad idea to burn.

But the starting of fires to burn items (opposed to simply fire wood or controlled gas) is generally not done in good faith and can be harmful to the environment. If you own something you do not want then it should be disposed of like any other possession, taking it to a recycling centre for example.

I find the ignorance of some users disturbing. If half the things said were said on purpose to a person in the street, they would get convicted of a hate crime. I'm only glad that one can choose to or not to read a thread instead of having it forced in their face.

And might I add that there are some issues that shouldn't be dismissed just because _you_ (not speaking to anyone in specific) don't find it offensive. That is what the UN is for, to decide for the majority.

I find the ignorance of some users disturbing. If half the things said were said on purpose to a person in the street, they would get convicted of a hate crime. I'm only glad that one can choose to or not to read a thread instead of having it forced in their face.

OOC: Actually, we know that. But we're arguing ICly on it. ICly, my nation does not have a history of hate crimes involving crosses and does not burn them in that manner. There are several nations on here that, ICly, burn religious symbols as part of their nativer religion.

And might I add that there are some issues that shouldn't be dismissed just because _you_ (not speaking to anyone in specific) don't find it offensive. That is what the UN is for, to decide for the majority.

True. However, considering the arguement so far, I would say to not dismiss that arguement either.

Looks like you and I are getting along DLE. I believe this is the true purpose of the UN in NationStates. To be able to discuss our differences in a logical and sensible manner so that each party can come out educated and enlightened.

It's not a religious aspect, but a holiday celebration in my nation. At one time this may have come from religious ceremonies, but that was thousands of years in the past.

The crosses are built using your typical T shape, only with a half-circle covering the top-three prongs (or whatever they are called). Then it is covered in a flamable liquid, gasoline was popular while iit was still available, and set on fire. The holiday is the Karsonat Pendel, the "Celebration of Freedom's Reign." It should be noted the crosses strangely resemble a few derelict ships we have come across, but a correlation has yet to be made.

My point: There can be reasons not related to hatred or religious belief for burning crosses. In this case, a cultural identity practice.

I suppose you also plant this 't-shape' in somebody's yard, put on some white sheets and set it ablaze so that you can let the person know that he is your target?

Get real...please...you are validating a vicious hate crime JUST becuase there is a remote chance that somebody might do this for religious purposes. As I've said. The KKK established themselves as a religion to slip through the loophole and we all saw right through it (I hope). If the government is too slow to react and is worried about hurting the feelings of 4 people (if even) in the entire world, then there is one way to solve it.

:mp5: :mp5: Vigilante law

I suppose you also plant this 't-shape' in somebody's yard, put on some white sheets and set it ablaze so that you can let the person know that he is your target?

Actually, no. Nor do I get where you got this from. You obviously only read the first couple of parts and decided to make an uninformed decision based on it. I suggest you read the entirety of it instead of making fooling assumptions.

Get real...please...you are validating a vicious hate crime JUST becuase there is a remote chance that somebody might do this for religious purposes. As I've said. The KKK established themselves as a religion to slip through the loophole and we all saw right through it (I hope). If the government is too slow to react and is worried about hurting the feelings of 4 people (if even) in the entire world, then there is one way to solve it.

You really might want to get out and experience a few things. There is a difference between just burning a cross and burning a cross in someone's yard.

The burning of religious symbols is not always a sign of hatred, prejudice, etc. In some cases, it is part of the religious practice to burn your holy symbol. In other cases, it may be a way of disposing of it. In the case I posted, it is a practice of cultural identity that unites a people who have few other cultural connections to their past.

:mp5: :mp5: Vigilante law

This doesn't help your case.

Ok, number one: the KKK does not and did not exist in NS (unless somebody is RPing it, but my point is this world is not reality. You can assume that their is racism in some nations, you can assume the existence of race hate groups, however you cannot assume the existence of cross-burning KKK).

Number two: if I like to go into my back garden and burn sticks that might happen to form a cross, or even if I intentionally make a cross to burn, I'm not necessarily hurting anyone. You might say this is unlikely, or a contrived example, but the point is that you shouldn't restrict actions which aren't in and of themselves harming someone - the thing we need to fight is racist abuse and attacks themselves (the burning cross is at most a medium through which this is expressed, and if banned, racists can just find another way to convey their message). So prosecute those who set a bunring cross on a black family's garden for harassment, endangering their property, incitement to racial hatred, whatever. Don't prosecute them for the cross itself, which in other circumstances could be innocuous, if you see what I mean.

I suppose you also plant this 't-shape' in somebody's yard, put on some white sheets and set it ablaze so that you can let the person know that he is your target?

Get real...please...you are validating a vicious hate crime JUST becuase there is a remote chance that somebody might do this for religious purposes. As I've said. The KKK established themselves as a religion to slip through the loophole and we all saw right through it (I hope). If the government is too slow to react and is worried about hurting the feelings of 4 people (if even) in the entire world, then there is one way to solve it.

:mp5: :mp5: Vigilante law

The problem is that UN resolutions can't really account for common sense.

We all know the difference between setting a cross on fire (either by accident or because you need to dispose of it) and setting a cross in someone's yard, and torching it cause you want to intimidate (or kill) the person to whom the yard belongs.

And all religions have different symbols. And to some religions the cross might not be a strong symbol, but might just be two bits of wood thrown together.

In addition there is also the arguement that if burning the flag of your own nation is a valid form of protest, then is not burning the holy symbol of your religion a valid form of protest.

So if you could alter the proposal to only ban the burning of a holy symbol when it is being used as a form of intimidation (the burning, not the symbol, obviously!) then it might gain a little more support.

(And don't take it personally that no one agrees with you, but you have to remember the HUGE diversity of religions that make up the nations in the UN)

Also (on a totally different thread part of the topic) what about movies? There they burn crosses for various reasons, but I don't think anyone in the movie is trying to use it to incite hatred or intimiate.

Dang it, TilEnca, you pre-empted my point!

What about a movie/documentary about the KKK or other group which burned (insert holy symbol) here? How about a documentary on protest groups? Those would not be illegal, no?

Just to add to the religious ritual aspect: it could be possible that a religious group could burn a cross to release its "essence" into the air so it can be breathed in by everyone, thus giving everyone its essence. In such a case, cross-burning would have to be protected.

Get real...please...you are validating a vicious hate crime JUST becuase there is a remote chance that somebody might do this for religious purposes.
:mp5: :mp5: Vigilante law[/QUOTE]


You obviously have no idea of the history of the KKK. I, for one, hate the organization myself, being a gay male, but I do not feel it should be outlawed or banned either. Maybe it is because I am from the U.S. South, but seriously, the KKK, as originally founded, was not based on racial or minority hatred. It has, unfortunalely, been twisted in this day and age, to be something viewed with disgust, however, I would suggest you look up the history of the KKK's founding and original practices, and NOT look for a website, for example, that has a slant to the left or the right, but one that has historical accuracy. Then again, just my opinion......

You obviously have no idea of the history of the KKK. I, for one, hate the organization myself, being a gay male, but I do not feel it should be outlawed or banned either. Maybe it is because I am from the U.S. South, but seriously, the KKK, as originally founded, was not based on racial or minority hatred. It has, unfortunalely, been twisted in this day and age, to be something viewed with disgust, however, I would suggest you look up the history of the KKK's founding and original practices, and NOT look for a website, for example, that has a slant to the left or the right, but one that has historical accuracy. Then again, just my opinion......

I don't think that the original proposer is planning on geting the KKK outlawed. Just the act of burning a cross as a symbol of hatred and intimidation. Which is possibly quite a good thing, but it would be a nightmare to define it in a way that doesn't leave loopholes and doesn't end up being very (almost impossibly) restrictive.

My point: There can be reasons not related to hatred or religious belief for burning crosses. In this case, a cultural identity practice.

That was my point, too. :)