NationStates Jolt Archive

Status: In quorum.

Le bump

Can I suggest you either post a copy here, or wait until it is at the floor, rather than just bumping a thread about something that, quite honestly, we can not do a lot about righ tnow?

Perhaps you might want to spend that time promoting and campaigning for your proposal, as per our polling only suggests a small margin of victory - one that could easily flip either way.

Why is there a need to separate Church and State?

Have you considered the Theocracies in NationStates?

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Mousebumples (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/34028/page=display_nation/nation=mousebumples)

Description:
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,

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.

I suppose I should be glad the " U.S. Constitution " referance dropped off ...Separation of Church and State

A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: MousebumplesThis is the topic presented. Next is my point by point review.Description: 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,In-correct, technically the U.N. could institute laws regarding anyparticular faith. For example, if the act torture is a part of a faiths worship, well, I think that faith may run into some problems. In so far as the U.N. law getting in the way ... At the end of the day, the U.N. has the right to make laws over pretty much everything and anything it wants, except Game Mechanic changes and motions counter to past law which is still active on the books.Acknowledging that separation of church and state is a basic tenet of democracy,Yes, well, I think the jury is still out on that one, ;)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,I disagree most certainly to this. Are we saying that the U.N. will ban nations who use an theocratical system of government ? Can we do that ? I thought not ...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",Ah, some " blank space filler " ... considering this seems to have little to do with the matter at hand, apart from both having the concept of " religion " present ...Be it resolvedAt last ...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,IN-CORRECT I THINK.

1) This clause directly sets out that the U.N. will self limit exactly what future laws can be written. It opens a terrible loop-hole from which we may not recover. How long until activities counter to the past U.N. laws are expressed as being of religious value ?

Also, might I add, the Nation States U.N. may not pass law that clearly states it will limit exactly what the U.N. can and cannot do.

2) Also equally worrying is this part here from above,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,As in the actual document here, Article 1 states :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.At no time is religion mentioned. Only government. I think a grave error here is being made in that the referance is aimed at :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.And ven so, this mentions National governments, not the U.N. itself. The U.N. is an over-riding body of national law.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.While I can agree with this clause as it seems to be the only one not mired in illegality or miss-referance, I'm afraid the rest of the proposal does not quite frankly meet the cut.

At this time I call for it to be removed for re-wording and correction.

2. Game Mechanics Proposal
We've been down this street previously. Thankfully, they're becoming slightly less prevalent at the moment. It is important to notice, however, that proposals about the UN not being allowed to infringe on "national sovereignty" are Game Mechanics things as well - clearly the UN can infringe on whatever it wants because the option to make such proposals exists.Emphasis mine.

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[...]

Hm.

Looks like Komo's got a point here. This appears to be trying to limit the future power of the UN, largely by misinterpreting the Rights and Duties Resolution. The limit on nations does not apply to the UN itself, as it's not a nation.

Edit: Having consulted with another Game Mod, we have decided to delete this proposal, despite the fact that it has reached quorum.

Looks like Komo's got a point here. This appears to be trying to limit the future power of the UN, largely by misinterpreting the Rights and Duties Resolution. The limit on nations does not apply to the UN itself, as it's not a nation.
I concur with my associate; this is a game mechanics violation.

If you don't like something that the UN does, then either lobby against the proposal when it's up for vote or lobby for a repeal if it's an already-passed resolution.

You may not submit a UN proposal to limit or expand what matters the UN may or may not consider.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

OOT: Yay! Komokom's back!

Yes, well, here and there, maybe, ;)

* I dropped some course components and am near final exam, soon I'll have about 2 months of fairly free time to plague you all more often, as I may take up a slightly more active U.N. watch ...

Definitely one which should be rewritten and resubmitted.

Definitely one which should be rewritten and resubmitted.

I disagree.
A resolution protecting an individuals freedom to pursue any religion they choose? Fine.
A resolution dictating which forms of government member nations are allowed to employ? Very not okay.
It may be a surprise, but not all NSUN nations are (or want to be) democracies. As a result, a resolution forcing tenants of democracy down their throats is ludicrous. It also seems to possess a slight paradox in itself. If every person is allowed to follow their chosen religion, and if their religion of choice involves acting in the form of a government, are you not denying them the ability to practice their religion through this enforced 'seperation of church and state'?

This proposal appears to have been deleted by the moderators - I was wondering if anyone could tell me the grounds upon which it was deleted?

This proposal appears to have been deleted by the moderators - I was wondering if anyone could tell me the grounds upon which it was deleted?

It's listed in the rest of this thread.

I think a resolution should be proposed, "Seperation of Hollywood and State." :p

There's a guy in our country by the name of Bruce Springtime and a group by the name of The Ditzy Chicks - they're always annoying my nation's people by acting as if they know what is best for them. :)

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

I think a resolution should be proposed, "Seperation of Hollywood and State." :p

There's a guy in our country by the name of Bruce Springtime and a group by the name of The Ditzy Chicks - they're always annoying my nation's people by acting as if they know what is best for them. :)

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

It's called elitism...like Barbara Streisand telling people to airdry their clothes and not use air conditioning and such...

I'm wondering if Barbara uses these methods to help the environment, or if she expects her drones to listen to her and her self-given power...

I won't get started on this...

I disagree.
A resolution protecting an individuals freedom to pursue any religion they choose? Fine.
A resolution dictating which forms of government member nations are allowed to employ? Very not okay.
It may be a surprise, but not all NSUN nations are (or want to be) democracies. As a result, a resolution forcing tenants of democracy down their throats is ludicrous. It also seems to possess a slight paradox in itself. If every person is allowed to follow their chosen religion, and if their religion of choice involves acting in the form of a government, are you not denying them the ability to practice their religion through this enforced 'seperation of church and state'?

Hmmm. Vastiva stands corrected, and reverses her view. We will stand against the attempted passing such legislation.

We thank the representative from New Tyrollia for the illumination in this matter.

While I agree no religion should be given direct preference over the other in the U.N., I'm not sure it's right to impose separation of church and state in EVERY member nations...while this may be a tenet of democracy, one must consider that not every nation in the U.N. IS a democracy, and that those nations wishing to have a theocracy should certainly be allowed to do so.

While I agree no religion should be given direct preference over the other in the U.N., I'm not sure it's right to impose separation of church and state in EVERY member nations...while this may be a tenet of democracy, one must consider that not every nation in the U.N. IS a democracy, and that those nations wishing to have a theocracy should certainly be allowed to do so.Give that player a giant novelty sized cookie ! :D