NationStates Jolt Archive

Please Support!!!
The Agnostic Child Act

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

Category: Moral Decency

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Nihilistic Robots

Description: Article I

RECOGNIZE that for purpose of resolution, the following language:
1) agnostic -uncertain of all claims to knowledge pertaining to religion
2) God -supernatural being conceived as perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient originator and ruler of universe
3) atheism -category of religion consisting of belief in the death of God, the non-existence of God, or any condition that would result in non-involvement of God
4) minor -person below age of 18 years
5) tabula rasa -opportunity to start without prejudice

Article II

UNDERSTANDING that current practice of religions in recruiting and/or initiating minors without their expressed consent, but through decision of their legal guardian, or state, AFFIRMING that a person's religion is an integral part of one's humanity,

COMMITTED to a tabula rasa idea regarding a person's choice of religion,

NOTING lack of procedures in some religions that are tantamount to an honorable discharge, should person change religion,

ACKNOWLEDGING fact that some member states have no separation between church and state,

NOTING that legal guardian's, or state's choice regarding minor's religion can in fact be a probable violation of UN Resolution #26 should person change religion,

ACKNOWLEDGING legal basis and good intent of legal guardians as to choice of religion of minor in care,

NOTING WITH REGRET inability of states to ensure protection of minor from religious intolerance, through their own or minor's legal guardians' beliefs , as defined in UN RESOLUTION #25,

GUIDED BY intentions put forth in UN Resolutions #19, and #51,

RECOGNIZING that practice can be used by states to create and/or support religious conflicts,

UNDERSTANDING common instances of aggregation of familial and religious traditions,

THE UN URGES its members a:
ban on recruitment of minors into all religious institutions.

ban on practice of religion by minors, which include but are not limited to:

1) religious prayers in any form in any place, public or private
2) attendance of sermons, open forums, gatherings hosted by religious institutions or their members in which beliefs of particular religions are emphasized
3) participation of religious rituals that forbid or institutionally frown upon inclusion of members of other religions
4) religious laws that are incongruent with laws of nation, or of UN, or public ethics

UNDERSTANDING that religions' initiation procedures require certain time for study and practices beforehand, ban on practice can be relaxed, provided following conditions are met:
1) Legal guardian have expressed consent.
2) Minor has expressed consent.
3) Minor is 14 years old or above.
4) Only practices required for initiation is to be allowed.

Voting Ends: Wed Dec 15 2004

Above is the submitted proposal. It had to be edited to fit the character count limit of NationStates. For easier reading, and my defense refer below:
The Agnostic Child Act

Catergory: Moral Decency
Strength: StrongThis resolution seeks to limit civil rights through an age determined banArticle I:

RECOGNIZE that for the purpose of this resolution, the following language will be used:
1) agnostic - uncertain of all claims to knowledge pertaining to religion
2) religion - the belief pertaining to the existence or non-existence of GodDeleted due to lack of space.3) God - a supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe
4) atheism - a category of religion consisting of the belief in the death of God, the non-existence of God, the apathy of God, or any condition that would result in the non-involvement of God in human concernsAtheism is defined to avoid runaway debates about it
5) minor - a person below 18 years oldsome, including myself at first, argue that the definition should "person below age of majority", more on this later...
6) "tabula rasa" - an opportunity to start without prejudice

Article II:

UNDERSTANDING that the current practice of some religions in recruiting and/or initiating minors without their expressed consent, but through the decision of their parent/s, their legal guardian, or the state,

AFFIRMING that a person's religion is an integral part of one's humanity,

COMMITTED to a "tabula rasa" idealogy with regards to a person's choice of religion,

NOTING WITH REGRET about the lack of procedures in some religions that are tantamount to an honorable discharge, should the person decide to change religious affiliations,

ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that some member states have no separation between church and state,

NOTING that, in fact, the parent's, legal guardian's, or the state's choice regarding the minor's religion will in fact be a violation of Article 1 of UN Resolution #26 titled "The Universal Bill of Rights" should the person decide to change religious affiliation,Seems to me, there is a loophole in the UN resolutions. States may not punish citizens for change of religion, but some religions define the acceptance of beliefs of a different religion as heresy, and usually punished to the utmost extreme, whether physical or through damnation or other forms of karmic retribution.
If a person was born in a theocracy, inducted by state or guardians into the religion and, coming of age of majority, wished to change religions, a crisis will occur. To not believe in the religion is to be a heretic. The church-state will punish him, even though the choice of religion not made by him originally. He is innocent of betraying his oath to the original religion, since he probably didn't make any (i.e. can't speak, can't sign contract).
To protect his soul, if not his person, he is forced into the current religion, which is a voilation of UN resolution #53 "Universal Freedom of Choice". (OOC: In the RL UN, a court can be convened to rule on matters of crisis such as this. but NSUN has no courts.) Theocracies and nations without separation of church and state can use this as way to force people to stay affiliated with them. (OOC: Majority of people in RL world believe in hell, and would probably do everything they can to stay out of it.)
Banning legal guardians, including the state, from initiating a minor into a religion, will close this loophole. The alternatives that I see for closing the loophole are either repealing "Universal Bill of Rights" or "Universal Freedom of Choice", or forcing religions to allow honorable discharges, which the UN has no jurisdiction.ACKNOWLEDGING the current legal basis and good-natured purpose for parents, and legal guardians as to the choice of religion of the minor in their care,

NOTING ALSO WITH REGRET the current inability of states to ensure protection of minor from religious intolerance, through their own beliefs or through the minor's parents and/or legal guardians , as defined in Article 2 of UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION # 25 titled "The Child Protection Act",

GUIDED BY the intentions put forth in UN Resolutions #19 titled "Religious Tolerance", and #51 titled "Children in War",A good reason for the age of eighteen(18) years old definition is that in case a state declares its age of majority to be, let's say, eight(8) years old. It can start recruiting children for the purpose of training them as religious soldiers among others. Stating an standard and commonly used age of majority prevents this.
RECOGNIZING that this practice can be used by states to directly or indirectly create and/or support religious conflicts,

UNDERSTANDING the common instances of aggregation of familial traditions and religious traditions,

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS URGES its member nations the following:
A ban on the recruitment and/or initiation of minors into religious institutions, irregardless whether state-sponsored or otherwise.

A ban the practice of religion by minors, which include but are not limited to the following:
1) religious prayers in any form in any place, public or private
2) attendance of sermons, lectures, open forums, gatherings and/or conventions hosted by religious institutions and/or their members in which the beliefs of particular religions are emphasizedThis says nothing against education about religion by parents or legal guardians to their children.3) religious rituals that forbid or institutionally frown upon the attendance and/or the inclusion of practitioners of other religionsNo, kids, Christmas isn't cancelled.
4) religious laws that are incongruent with the laws of the nation, laws of the NSUN or the society's ethics

UNDERSTANDING that religions' initiation procedures require certain time for study and practices beforehand, ban on practice can be relaxed, provided following conditions are met:
1) Legal guardian have expressed consent.
2) Minor has expressed consent.
3) Minor is 14 years old or above
4) Only practices required for initiation is to be allowed.

I like this, but it is in the wrong category. Moral Decency RESTRICTS Human Rights. Choosing a religion is Human Rights, because it's a civil freedom to choose.

This restricts the rights of people to worship below a certain age and is, in effect, trying to control the religious beliefs of children.

I cannot support this. I do not agree with the idea of trying to restrict children from religion anymore than I agree with the idea of trying to restrict children to a single religion. If the children choose to follow a set of religious beliefs, I see it as the responsibility of the parents to support the children and try to educate them on what beliefs they are looking at. This may mean the parents will have to research and learn a few things themselves, but that comes with parenthood anyway.

As such, I cannot support this proposal because I see it as counteractive to my efforts on here. No disrespect meant to you.

If the children choose to follow a set of religious beliefs, I see it as the responsibility of the parents to support the children and try to educate them on what beliefs they are looking at.

That's even better

I disagree with forcing parents to teach their kids religion, but I also disagree with forcing children to be agnostic. I believe a parent's job is to raise their children to be the best people they can possibly be. The government forcing children to follow one set of (or lack, thereof) beliefs or forcing parents to teach one they don't believe in counteracts this. If a parent followed a certain religion, it'd be logical they'd want their child to follow it.

I'm not religious myself, but I could see a lot of problems with this that might arise in the minds of people who are. For instance, I'll point out one from a fundamental Christian perspective, since that's how I was raised. What happens if the child were to die (from some sort of accident, or natural causes) before they were to reach the age at which they were 'legally able to choose their religion'? The parent would have failed in their religious duty, and might possibly have doomed the child as a result. While I myself may not believe this, there are citizens of New Tyrollia who do. (Not to mention other religions in which similar factors may apply.) To deny them the ability to school the child in their respective religious (or cultural, for that matter) beliefs is an action this government is unwilling to take.


*OOC: Commendable intention though, IMHO

I have to echo the previous sentiments. I am not one for forcing a religion on someone, but if I want to teach my child about The Powers and The Lords, and have them come with me to services, why should I be forbidden from doing so? Surely that is violating the religious tolerance laws the UN agreed upon some while back?

Also - on a purely procedural point - by the time someone reaches the age of 14 in my nation they are an adult. I just thought I would mention that, since you are classing children as under 18, and not under the age of majority.

(OOC: Firstly, I'd like to apologise for the state of the proposal. Its original form had 6000+ characters and was promptly rejected by the nationstates website, which accepts only 2780 chars. :headbang: I will also pose the original version after the char-counted one. In fact, the current form is missing an entire article that would explain the full intent of my proposal. I was forced to be a char-counter, if not a carb-counter :( bad pun!

When I get home, and get access to the original, I will post it along with my complete defense. )

What happens if the child were to die (from some sort of accident, or natural causes) before they were to reach the age at which they were 'legally able to choose their religion'? The parent would have failed in their religious duty
IMHO they would also have, in a sense, failed their biological duty to raise the child to adulthood irregardless of the child's religion.

might possibly have doomed the child as a result.
Isn't it taught by Christianity that all children go to heaven, it's only when they hit adulthood that things get really stringent? Anyway, I don't have a full and complete understanding of the religion. Forgive me if I am mistaken.

My proposal isnt based on children's sense of understanding of religion, but whose legal responsiibility the person is. Char-counting forced me to state a number as to when the child becomes an adult and becomes legally responsible for himself/herself and the ramifications of his choice for a religion.

Let me just say that you don't to worry about your children growing up to be ignoramous about your religion. That is what the Article III and IV was supposed to be about. They are not allowed to practice religion, but are allowed to learn about them.

Let me just say that you don't to worry about your children growing up to be ignoramous about your religion. That is what the Article III and IV was supposed to be about. They are not allowed to practice religion, but are allowed to learn about them.

I'm sorry - I realise you are well intentioned and want to stop religious indoctrination of children, but I personally think this is not the way to go about it.

By all means stop prayer in schools - they generally have children of more than one religion, and no one should feel left out.

But to tell me that my child is not allowed to ask The Powers That Be for help until he is an adult is, quite honestly, an insult to every person in my nation. If my child wants to pray in his own room, he should not be prevented from doing so. And I honestly can not see a reason why he should be.

Also - "2) attendance of sermons, open forums, gatherings hosted by religious institutions or their members in which beliefs of particular religions are emphasized" would pretty much stop them coming to services with me. Never in my life has a service I have been to said "Worship the Lords, cause quite honestly the Christian God is a feckless thug" - that is not the way we do things. But the phrase "If you believe in The Lords they can help you in your life" could easily be intrepretted as showing a benifit of my religion, which the child would not be permitted to attend.

I realise that there should be some guidance, but honestly while the child is under the roof and under the care of his parents, they should be permitted to raise him in the way they see fit. But once he turns 14 and is legally an adult, he should then be able to make up his own mind without preasure from his parents.

IMHO they would also have, in a sense, failed their biological duty to raise the child to adulthood irregardless of the child's religion.

Really? Even if the child was struck by a drunk driver, or contracted a disease? Not everything that can happen to a child can be controlled by the parent. And even if they had somehow 'failed their biological duty', how does that in anyway justify the failure of their religious duty?

Isn't it taught by Christianity that all children go to heaven, it's only when they hit adulthood that things get really stringent? Anyway, I don't have a full and complete understanding of the religion. Forgive me if I am mistaken.

It depends on which particular sect of Christianity you ask. For the most part what you thought was true, but only if the child is baptized. Without that religious ceremony (which would be illegal to perform on an infant under this law) the child retains 'original sin' and is thus unable to enter heaven. Like I said though, this doesn't apply to every Christian denomonation, and it really doesn't matter. As long as some religion in my Country has any kind of belief similar to this philosophy, the Government would become 'immoral' by passing it.

IMHO they would also have, in a sense, failed their biological duty to raise the child to adulthood irregardless of the child's religion.
You mean like when the child dies of a congenital birth defect or cancer, or gets run over while crossing the street to go to school, or gets struck by lightning while playing baseball?

Plus, although it places blame on the PARENTS, that's not the issue. The real issue is the CHILD'S fate, which that objection fails to address.

(I'm not religious by any means, but that was a horrible response you gave that answered a totally different question from what was asked).


Isn't it taught by Christianity that all children go to heaven, it's only when they hit adulthood that things get really stringent?
No. Catholicism has the notion of "Purgatory", which is where infants who died before they could be baptized and those who were never exposed to Christianity in their lifetimes go--but that doesn't apply to children who died after they could have been baptized and had been exposed to Christianity, but that's the long and short of it. Besides, Christianity isn't the only faith that matters here--all Abrahamic faiths and in fact most theistic religions in general have a concept equivalent to "heaven/hell", and non-believers are sent to the Hell-equivalent.

Char-counting forced me to state a number as to when the child becomes an adult and becomes legally responsible for himself/herself and the ramifications of his choice for a religion.
Ever hear of the phrase "age of majority"? Just use something like that.

Let me just say that you don't to worry about your children growing up to be ignoramous about your religion. That is what the Article III and IV was supposed to be about. They are not allowed to practice religion, but are allowed to learn about them.
That's not for you or any government to decide, sorry.

(OOC: so far in this forum....6 con, 0 pro...unless you count me.)
Very Strong views about religion, who knew?! j/k :)
Appreciate all your view points. no joke.

What happens if the child were to die (from some sort of accident, or natural causes) before they were to reach the age at which they were 'legally able to choose their religion'? The parent would have failed in their religious duty
Most religions' basis for self perpetuation and growth (aside from converting the heathens) is that its members to want ultimately have religious children who grow up to have their parents' faith. Celibacy is usually enforced only on the religious leaders (i.e. monks, priests), usually as a way of ensuring their purity. Since the anecdotal child had died in your rather graphic examples, he/she does not get to fully "spread the word" about his parents' faith. Hence, the failure in parents' religious duty regardless of incomplete religious indoctrination of the child.

Ever hear of the phrase "age of majority"? Just use something like that. Tried...the current form slipped by just 8 chars i think. note the lack of 'the'. :( Reading it feels awful.

But to tell me that my child is not allowed to ask The Powers That Be for help until he is an adult is, quite honestly, an insult to every person in my nation. If my child wants to pray in his own room, he should not be prevented from doing so. And I honestly can not see a reason why he should be.I believe in the power of prayer. IMO It can heal the sick, stop wars, topple dictatorships, soothe a restless soul, change a family's fortunes, even let a person commune with The Powers That Be. Being powerful, it can also be dangerous. A child with unanswered prayers might feel spiritually abandoned. Lesser people might use miscreant forms of prayer in an attempt to subvert children for political causes. Seeing as there is no sure test to determine appropriate use, I felt the need for its control. (OOC: my idea for its enforcement is akin to mattress tags, or jaywalking across an obviously empty street. Highly doubt SWAT teams would be busting down doors for those offenses, nor to Timmy's prayer for world peace. But I understand your concern.)

Apology for the admittedly brash-sounding pointless remark mentioned earlier. I believe that in an ideal world, no child should be buried by their parents. But the NS world is an analog of the real world. Dream houses can burn down. College trust funds can be mishandled. Good deeds can get punished. I think that's why most of you are in the NSUN, you believe something can be done about it...and so do I.

I believe in the power of prayer. IMO It can heal the sick, stop wars, topple dictatorships, soothe a restless soul, change a family's fortunes, even let a person commune with The Powers That Be. Being powerful, it can also be dangerous. A child with unanswered prayers might feel spiritually abandoned. Lesser people might use miscreant forms of prayer in an attempt to subvert children for political causes. Seeing as there is no sure test to determine appropriate use, I felt the need for its control. (OOC: my idea for its enforcement is akin to mattress tags, or jaywalking across an obviously empty street. Highly doubt SWAT teams would be busting down doors for those offenses, nor to Timmy's prayer for world peace. But I understand your concern.)


The thing is I don't believe in the power of prayer to change things. I honestly do not believe that The Powers hear the voice of every person in TilEnca and acts upon it - that would be insane and quite honestly impossible, even for the divine.
Prayer doesn't change the universe - it changes the person who is praying. You can ask for help from friends, from neighbours, from total strangers, or from a power higher than yourself. And it makes you feel better.

If I were permitted to teach my child, I would teach them that praying is asking for guidance, and allowing yourself to accept there are some things you might not be able to help. And that sometimes guidance will come, and sometimes it will not.

I honestly don't think praying changes the universe, so using it an "offensive" manner is not something that worries me.

I realise you have put a lot of thought in to this, and I do kind of understand where you are coming from. But forbidding parents from teaching their children about their religion is not the way to prevent.... anything really.

I won't support any resolution that restricts the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit, barring abuse.

The thriving pagan community in Isisamos would suffer greatly under this resolution. Much of their herbalism needs to be taught from childhood in order to properly practice it as adults.

Ultimately, however, if the people of a nation wish to conduct themselves in a theocratic fashion, who are we to tell them otherwise?

Restricting or allowing the practice of religion is not the pervue of government, nor indeed the United Nations.

Telling parents how to indoctrine or not indoctrine thier children in moral and ethical values is not the pervue of government nor indeed the United Nations.

Any child, once grown, has the unaliable right and ability to believe whatever they wish, even if they feel they cannot express this belief. If someone's religious belief exists beyond mere lip-service (which is irrelevant) then they will live that way no matter who tells them what to or what not to believe.

The proposal is blantant religious bigotry of the utmost regard; The Republic will not support the rantings of religious bigots; regardless of their intentions.

The proposal is in direct violation of the principle of seperation of church and state in accordance with the Constitutional Republic's Federal Constitution... And thus is constituted a direct attack upon freedom and liberty.

The proposal is in direct violation of the principle of seperation of church and state in accordance with the Constitutional Republic's Federal Constitution... And thus is constituted a direct attack upon freedom and liberty.

How is it a direct violation? It is not suggesting that one religion be promoted over another, nor it is saying the government must act from a religious center. If anything it is atempting to remove religion from a part of the nation it was in before - schools and so forth.

Don't get me wrong - I still oppose it. I am just curious as to your reasoning :}

As a "relaxed agnostic", I must agree with Tekania. It's mandating agnosticism, a belief that there is no correct belief. Agnosticism and atheism would still be classed as religious teachings, as they teach not to accept faith-based teachings as a valid answer. Either way, it can't be proved, so both are necessarily faith-based as well.

How is it a direct violation? It is not suggesting that one religion be promoted over another, nor it is saying the government must act from a religious center. If anything it is atempting to remove religion from a part of the nation it was in before - schools and so forth.

Don't get me wrong - I still oppose it. I am just curious as to your reasoning :}

Principle of seperation dictates that the government and religion are seperate in power; The government may not bar an individual from any religious practice or worship which is not infringing upon the rights of another. The government can no more ban a person in a government building from praying, than they can mandate it... Any view contrary to this, in one direction or the other; is not seperation, but rather government formulated religion (even if it is trying to mandate an atheistic or agnostic viewpoint)...

This single principle is one of the fundamental foundations of developing a free and libertine society... Without it, you cannot call yourself a free nation; and stands with the principles of Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press.

I'm sorry - I realise you are well intentioned and want to stop religious indoctrination of children, but I personally think this is not the way to go about it.

I'd agree with TilEnca on this one; while I'm all for letting children figure out on their own what religion they want to believe in, I don't believe eliminating and limiting it is necessarily the right way to go about it, especially when you have theocracies that run an entire country.

Principle of seperation dictates that the government and religion are seperate in power; The government may not bar an individual from any religious practice or worship which is not infringing upon the rights of another. The government can no more ban a person in a government building from praying, than they can mandate it... Any view contrary to this, in one direction or the other; is not seperation, but rather government formulated religion (even if it is trying to mandate an atheistic or agnostic viewpoint)...

This single principle is one of the fundamental foundations of developing a free and libertine society... Without it, you cannot call yourself a free nation; and stands with the principles of Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press.

Right. That makes sense now. Thanks :}

NOTING that, in fact, the parent's, legal guardian's, or the state's choice regarding the minor's religion will in fact be a violation of Article 1 of UN Resolution #26 titled "The Universal Bill of Rights" should the person decide to change religious affiliation,

Seems to me, there is a loophole in the UN resolutions. States may not punish citizens for change of religion, but some religions define the acceptance of beliefs of a different religion as heresy, and usually punished to the utmost extreme, whether physical or through damnation or other forms of karmic retribution.

This, I think, is the nub of the whole rationale for this proposal. "States may not punish citizens for change of religion" covers all that needs to be covered by the UN. Why? Let's look at each case.

- Adherent changes to "heretical" religion, old religion physically punishes former adherent. This should invariably be a crime under the law of the state the adherent resides in. If it is punishment to his person, that's a criminal assault, if physical punishment to his friends or family, that is also a criminal assault, if physical punishment to his property, then that's either a crime (vandalism) or a tort (and the adherent is allowed to sue the "old church" for damages). At most, the UN should force member states to ban such conduct on the part of the "old church", and I'm not sure that several existing resolutions, taken in combination, do not already do precisely that.

- Adherent changes to "heretical religion", old religion "darns former adherent to eternal heck". Well, if the adherent really believed the old religion had the power to do that, even if the former religion promised to never do so, whatever would be the incentive to change religions? Wouldn't the "right" or "true" religion be the one that had exclusive powers of damnation? One would think that one would never seriously consider changing religions unless one believed that either the new faith had the power to pardon such transgressions, or that the pronouncements of the old faith carried no more weight than the oaths of a small child. I find it hard to see how the UN could be of any help here...if one is adult enough to conclude that he is in the wrong religion, one is also adult enough to conclude that wrong religion holds no sway in the afterlife. And, conversely, if one is incapable of realizing that one's current religion has no real spiritual power to condemn, why would one even consider changing religions at all? Either way, it's not a matter for the UN. As for any actions that go beyond "eternal darnation", see previous paragraph.

- Adherent changes to "heretical religion", old religion invokes "massive kharmic retaliation". See previous paragraph. For non-kharmic retaliation, back up two paragraphs instead of one.

If a person was born in a theocracy, inducted by state or guardians into the religion and, coming of age of majority, wished to change religions, a crisis will occur. To not believe in the religion is to be a heretic. The church-state will punish him, even though the choice of religion not made by him originally. He is innocent of betraying his oath to the original religion, since he probably didn't make any (i.e. can't speak, can't sign contract).

Now, this makes a lot more sense as an item that the UN could or should get involved in. Specifically, our hypothetical case is a theocracy in which minors are inducted into a state-sponsored religion as innocents, then punished by the church-state should they desire to leave that religion once reaching the age of reason. I should point out that this is precisely the state in several nations which inhabit the universe seperate and parallel to the NS universe, the one sometimes called "the real world" (although, of course, it is just a fantasy to those of us in the NS universe). Here, however, there is no need to trade off civil liberties in the interest of moral decency. Allowing adults to freely change religions is in the interest of both civil liberty and moral decency, although at the expense of the state's absolute power to rule or to compel observence of a specific faith. If existing UN resolutions don't address this, this is what this resolution should be about instead of preventing small children from praying (an impossible task), forbidding children from attending church services with their parents (which also infringes upon the parent's freedom to practice religion, since many poor parents cannot afford child care while attending services), or forbidding informal gatherings of adults (such as Aunt Janice's weekly coffee klatch) from discussing religious matters or espousing religious beliefs in the presence of Aunt Janice's kids.

The alternatives that I see for closing the loophole are either repealing "Universal Bill of Rights" or "Universal Freedom of Choice", or forcing religions to allow honorable discharges, which the UN has no jurisdiction.

And what of the right of adults to disagree on matters of religion? Literaly, what is one to do when one concludes that Archbishop Bob is not longer preaching the Word, but heresy? Without an "honorable discharge" as you describe it, one is "darned to heck" either way. If one doesn't oppose Archbishop Bob's heretical teachings, one will follow him to heck. But if one opposes it and forms a division of the faith, then one will be excommunicated by Archbishop Bob and doomed to heck anyway. As a practical matter, what generally happens is that when one concludes that Archbishop Bob is a heretic in Archbishop's clothing, one also concludes that Archbishop Bob no longer has the power to excommunicate, and does as one believes best for his soul, Archbishop Bob be darned. No "honorable discharge" is needed nor required...unless one is fearful of physical retribution as well as spiritual retribution.

And, if one can form a schism in a church as an adult, what is the overarching reason for preventing a child from being "claimed" by a religion?

UNDERSTANDING the common instances of aggregation of familial traditions and religious traditions,

Ah, no. That's precisely the problem with this resolution, it DOESN'T understand nor respect the common aggregation of familial and religious traditions. As written, a family would be free to decorate a Christmas tree and exchange gifts on Christmas, and might be free to discuss that the origin of Christmas lie with Jesus's birth (although I suspect the line between education and indoctrination is fuzzier than you might think), but they would be forbidden to utter a prayer of thanksgiving before devouring the Christmas feast. And that's a restriction on the freedom to practice religion by the ADULTS in the family, not an enhancement of the religious freedom (to be free from a particular religion) of the children in the family.

Moreover, to the extent that the practice of a religion by all members of a family, including the children, forms a cultural or protected group, this resolution is necessarily in conflict with the recently passed resolution on genocide. Forbidding such observences essentially destroys the culture. If you fail to grasp this point, consider the enforcement action of removing children from the homes of orthodox parents who insist that the practice of their religion necessarily extends to children.

A ban the practice of religion by minors, which include but are not limited to the following:
1) religious prayers in any form in any place, public or private

Already discussed by others here. And don't pretend for a moment that this would work like mattress tags (which can legally be removed by consumers...try making a practice of selling matresses without tags as a commercial business, and see how long you can go without a visit from the authorities). At the very least, children would be punished at school for "prayer by a minor", which would necessarily be against school rules, if not some sort of criminal law.

2) attendance of sermons, lectures, open forums, gatherings and/or conventions hosted by religious institutions and/or their members in which the beliefs of particular religions are emphasized

This says nothing against education about religion by parents or legal guardians to their children.

You might think so, but it pretty effectively forbids the participants in Aunt Janice's weekly coffee klatch (all of whom are members of the Official One and Only True Church) from answering Aunt Janice's little boy's questions about why they all go to church, or even from discussing religious matters in his presence.

3) religious rituals that forbid or institutionally frown upon the attendance and/or the inclusion of practitioners of other religions

Well, by the recently passed definition of genocide, this is pretty effectively de facto genocide. Consider that it promotes the indoctrination of minors into religions that are tolerant of other religions, and that it inhibits the indoctrination of minors into religions that are intolerant. And if you don't see that, consider that there is no problem with little Joey going to the Festival of Umpkquaqua every year, mingling with the members of the Church of Umpkquaqua and eating the special Umpkquaqua candies that it is their custom to distribute to all, believer and unbeliever alike in commemoration of St. Umpkquaqua, but should little Joey ever set foot inside the door of the hall of the Church of Sourpuss when they celebrate their Exclusion Festival, then all members of the Church of Sourpuss present could be subject to legal penaties for Unauthorized Proselytization of a Minor.

4) religious laws that are incongruent with the laws of the nation, laws of the NSUN or the society's ethics

Um, that's genocide. See above. Or better yet, give me a working definition of "laws that are incongruent with other laws". A religious law that says you are blaspheming against all that is holy by eating with your left hand is arguably "incongruent" with the laws of the NSUN. Are you saying that religion should be banned, or that they should be prohibited from "darning to heck" anyone who eats with their left hand?

I also want to see how you would judge whether a particular religious law is "incongruent with...the society's ethics". In a theocracy, that pretty much forbids the establishment or practice of any religion that is at variance with the established state religion...is that what you really want?

All told, I think this resolution expresses some noble sentiments. However, in practice, it is impossible to completely throw out the bathwater of religious indoctrination of minors without also throwing out the baby of religious freedom.

This proposal is flawed on many levels. First and foremost, it stamps on the religious freedom of children, and, I have to say that would be a tremendous crime against them. The typical 4 year old is far more enthusiastic about their religion than the typical adult, at least in my experience as a man who has led children's church services on many occasions.

Second, it forces the agnostic religion onto children, with no regard to the fact that maybe, just maybe, that kid wants to go to church with mom and dad.

Despite the fact that our government is ran by the Christian community (and the many churches that form that community), Faithful Servants doesn't believe in forcing any religion onto anyone, not even Christianity. A religion is pointless if you're not allowed to choose it yourself. However, banning the practice of religion by children is every bit as much a crime as forcing them into church ever week against their will would be. This proposal can not, in good conscience, be allowed to pass.

(OOC:Forum count so far: CONS: 12, PRO: 0 (not including myself))
I realise you have put a lot of thought in to this, and I do kind of understand where you are coming from.(OOC: Much appreciated. If anything, I am actually just pleasantly surprised about the amount and most importantly, the quality of feedback. Plus, the fact that there really are spiritual yet logical people out there and not either-or. Really have to thank people who shared their views here. I pretty much figured in the start that this proposal will have SCIH to pass, but given the quality(? or lack of) of some passed resolutions... For now, I wouldn't quit just yet. :) A NS diplomat has his job to do.)

Principle of seperation dictates that the government and religion are seperate in power; The government may not bar an individual from any religious practice or worship which is not infringing upon the rights of another. The government can no more ban a person in a government building from praying, than they can mandate it The government can ban any action of its citizens. Praying is an action, though, some might see it as an unalienable right. Suicide does not infringe on the rights of others, but most of us agree that it should be banned, though some believe it can be allowed given quote: "a REALLY, REALLY good reason!" Also, there are states that have no separation of church and state.

The thriving pagan community in Isisamos would suffer greatly under this resolution. Much of their herbalism needs to be taught from childhood in order to properly practice it as adults.From my understanding, is your people's herbalism is defined as medical use of plants and herbs, probably in accordance to some earth religion, akin to druidism? In that case,.....hmm... :rolleyes:...good point. Will think about this some more.

Restricting or allowing the practice of religion is not the pervue of government or, indeed the UN.It is. As long as the religion has members that are citizens of the state. It would be state's prerogative to step in, esp. if its citizens rights, or their safety was in jeapordy. (OOC: case in point, Japan's crack-down on Aum Shin Rikkyo. The religious leaders were caught and the cult disbanded.) Same thing with morals and ethics. Society's ethics are formed by citizens' ethics. That is obviously a state's concern, as it will affect criminality, corruption, among others.

A religious law that says you are blaspheming against all that is holy by eating with your left hand is arguably "incongruent" with the laws of the NSUN. Are you saying that religion should be banned, or that they should be prohibited from "darning to heck" anyone who eats with their left hand?(OOC: Zerothly, way long post!) Firstly, I have said nothing about the total banning of any religions. Nor do I state anything to similar to "This certain religion has no right to punish its members." It would not be within the jurisdiction of a government. That said. Not eating with your left hand doesn't absolutely impinge on your rights, as it is 'arguably "incongruent"'.

Also, my analogy of mattress tags law is with private prayer. I am curious, if a private consumer buys a mattress, removes the tag, but later decides to resell it, does he receive a visit from said authorities?

The government can ban any action of its citizens. Praying is an action, though, some might see it as an unalienable right. Suicide does not infringe on the rights of others, but most of us agree that it should be banned, though some believe it can be allowed given quote: "a REALLY, REALLY good reason!" Also, there are states that have no separation of church and state.

I could give a damn about tyranical and theocracratic governments with lack of seperation clauses (because if you lack seperation clause, that is all you are). You can take your tyrany, and shove it.

In addition, I find your proposal illegal under present international law (the UBR Art. 1 and 2), and push for your immediate arrest and detainment before this body for your tyranical acts against the populace of free nations.

Hmm religious bigotry?? More like trying to stop the abuse of minors by brain washing them with a religion before they are old enough to understand the religious choices on offer. In fact this proposal is fairer on all religions as a person will have time to be exposed to many religions rather than being born into one no say in the matter - a matter which judged by teh irate comments here is important to a person.

Hmm religious bigotry?? More like trying to stop the abuse of minors by brain washing them with a religion before they are old enough to understand the religious choices on offer. In fact this proposal is fairer on all religions as a person will have time to be exposed to many religions rather than being born into one no say in the matter - a matter which judged by teh irate comments here is important to a person.

No, it isn't...

You present a fallacious, and deceitful view... Since this resolution would, in fact, make it illegal for a child to learn of ANY religion what-so-ever, short of mandated atheism or agnosticism.

What you present, Mr. Sophist, is a lie, guised under a false sense of "liberty"... but a lie none-the-less.

The child would be unable to access any religious texts, unable to attend any services from any religion, unable to practice any particular religion.

I'm sorry, sir, but I will not put up with this principle, nor your blatant clouded lies, which run absolutely contrary to a free society.

Take your veiled deceit elsewhere, you petty tyrant. You will not deny my people their freedoms....

I could give a damn about tyranical and theocracratic governments with lack of seperation clausesSadly, you should. Such states are, in fact, integral part of the UN, in ensuring that it can represent all types of nations. I would like to cite the widely popular, but ultimately illegal, proposal on the separation of church and state.

The child would be unable to access any religious textsThere is no restrictions on reading materials, or any media for that matter.

push for your immediate arrest and detainment before this body for your tyranical acts against the populace of free nationsWhat acts?! I can understand your objections, but this is a open forum to discuss the legality and possible reprecussions of the proposal. Ironic that you denouce tyrannical states, yet you call for my detainment on the grounds of baseless accusations. I hope that you would calm yourself and allow this forum to continue without needless animosity. As a knowledgable man once said: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." I wish you would prove to me otherwise.

Sadly, you should. Such states are, in fact, integral part of the UN, in ensuring that it can represent all types of nations. I would like to cite the widely popular, but ultimately illegal, proposal on the separation of church and state.

Obviously someone who has not read the FAQ or passed resolutions.

1) The separation of church and state is legal to enforce. The UN has the power to do it.

2) Those nations are no more an integral part of the UN than a banana peel is an integral part of a car. And they are given about as much thought in the inclusion by the passed resolutions.

What acts?! I can understand your objections, but this is a open forum to discuss the legality and possible reprecussions of the proposal. Ironic that you denouce tyrannical states, yet you call for my detainment on the grounds of baseless accusations. I hope that you would calm yourself and allow this forum to continue without needless animosity. As a knowledgable man once said: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." I wish you would prove to me otherwise.

Tekania was posting in character and, despite his accusations, not insulting you. You, however, have decided to flame him. Look in the mirror before you accuse others of being guilty.

But I will not surrender liberty, under the pretense of "protecting" it... Such a concept is absurd... There is no point in the hermetic sealing of an essential liberty...

As such, I could care less about theocracies; if you wish to present seperation clauses, fine, this resolution however is a blatant violation of individual liberties, and this Republic refuses to pass legislation upon the religious beliefs of our free peoples. You might as well ask us to crap on every essential freedom and liberty of the people, and wipe our rears with this Republic's great Constitution.

The act even to present such a heinous document to afront the freedom of the populace of this Republic and other free and libertine nations. Maybe you don't take the liberty and freedom of your people to such a serious regard, but we do.

As for calling for your arrest, such is no more violent then calling for the arrest of anyone who proposes to violate the freedoms of another. Every person has been granted the freedom to worship the religion of their choice, and it is the responsibility of each and every parent to rear their child in accordance with their own beliefs... Moslem, Christian, Jew, Hindu, or what not... It is only through the preservation of this essential liberty, that a free society may continue... Without it, the society is no longer free.

Government, of any shape, shall not legislate upon religion.

The Armed Republic of Florida Oranges wishes to inform the United Nations body that it will NOT approve this resolution, or vote for it should it somehow make it to he floor (highly doubtful). The act is very restrictive, and encroaches on how FAMILIES are run. The Orange administration, which is comprised of thousands of officials, is totally disgusted that another nation would tell them how to run their families. Utterly disgraceful.

(OOC: DemonLordEnigma, if you would be so kind as to post a link to the FAQ for me. I would be grateful and strive to be less incompetent.)
Tekania was posting in character and, despite his accusations, not insulting you. You, however, have decided to flame him. Look in the mirror before you accuse others of being guilty.The representative of the Tekania of had accused me of tyrannical acts which was both ridiculous and insulting. He has also accused me of "present[ing] a fallacious, and deceitful view". When have I done so? As a diplomat to the UN, I had to remind the Tekanian representative of his composure, nothing more. (OOC: My sincerest apologies to Tekania if I technically flamed. It was my attempt at a RP chill pill. Look at me. :headbang: Better now?)

Tekania:
Calling yourself a free nation and not allowing views differing from your own to be heard. (OOC: not a flame, I'm just calling it as I see it.) I do not ask that the UN member pass this resolution irregardless of logic or convictions, nor do I call upon favors to pass it. All I ask is that the members present in the UN spare a moment of their time to analyze this. As we can all see, their reactions to it have been heard here. (OOC: I even update how many people are against this proposal here.) Let us please get back to the discussion.

We are a nation of free people. We merely want to defend the rights of minors who have no way of defending themselves. This proposal is an attempt of such.

It would seem to this delegate, that all of the arguments presented here are not over intentions or principles, but rather over the manner in which these aims are pursued. This would lead me to hope that we might find a solution in which all of these respective principles are embraced, without infringing upon each other. Since we all seem to agree that liberty must be preserved, but also that indoctrination can restrict that liberty, perhaps we can direct our energies towards creating a viable alternative to this Act, instead of simply continuing to flog it?
If I might advance a suggestion, what about a proposal that would remove religion from schools established and/or funded largely or in whole by the government (schools founded and maintained by independent organizations, or operating under some other system would remain exempt), and also ensure that information on various religious groups was available? How this second part would be conducted, I admit I am unsure at the present time, but the strength of the NSUN comes from many minds, not one, and I feel confident that if it is a step worth pursuing, one of my valued brethren will have an idea far beyond my humble musings.
I can anticipate that some might object based upon the argument that a theocracy might not approve, it is, after all, an objection I myself raised to the original proposal. However, may I remind you that Resolution #26: "The Universal Bill of Rights" states in Article 1 that:
"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 that Resolution #19: "Religious Tolerance" protects religious groups from any persecution. As a result, alternate religions to the one favored by the ruling regime are already allowed, and protected, in a theocratic government. This would also not violate the theocratic system itself, per se, as the government is free to remain religious, but the removal of faith from education may go a long way towards preventing indoctrination.

This way we can help give children the ability to think clearly, as well as provide them with religious choice, while at the same time respecting the families right to raise and instruct their children as they see fit. If anyone has any suggestions, or alternate ideas, please speak up.

(OOC: DemonLordEnigma, if you would be so kind as to post a link to the FAQ for me. I would be grateful and strive to be less incompetent.)
The representative of the Tekania of had accused me of tyrannical acts which was both ridiculous and insulting. He has also accused me of "present[ing] a fallacious, and deceitful view". When have I done so? As a diplomat to the UN, I had to remind the Tekanian representative of his composure, nothing more. (OOC: My sincerest apologies to Tekania if I technically flamed. It was my attempt at a RP chill pill. Look at me. :headbang: Better now?)

Tekania:
Calling yourself a free nation and not allowing views differing from your own to be heard. (OOC: not a flame, I'm just calling it as I see it.) I do not ask that the UN member pass this resolution irregardless of logic or convictions, nor do I call upon favors to pass it. All I ask is that the members present in the UN spare a moment of their time to analyze this. As we can all see, their reactions to it have been heard here. (OOC: I even update how many people are against this proposal here.) Let us please get back to the discussion.

We are a nation of free people. We merely want to defend the rights of minors who have no way of defending themselves. This proposal is an attempt of such.

BUT, there are entire religions built upon familial worship. The effect of this resolution would make many faiths, to be blunt, illegal, merely because parental responsibility and familial communion are ingrafted tenets of their faith.


4) minor -person below age of 18 years

An afront to some nations, whose minor status may be set earlier.


Article II

UNDERSTANDING that current practice of religions in recruiting and/or initiating minors without their expressed consent, but through decision of their legal guardian, or state, AFFIRMING that a person's religion is an integral part of one's humanity,

Such is a basic premise of parental guardianship, the children are the responsibility in rearing of the parents, including a rearing in the beliefs and customs of the parents.


COMMITTED to a tabula rasa idea regarding a person's choice of religion,

We refuse to commit to any view, as a government, as regards to modes and operations of religion.


NOTING lack of procedures in some religions that are tantamount to an honorable discharge, should person change religion,

A basic afront to many religious views.


ACKNOWLEDGING fact that some member states have no separation between church and state,

Of which this resolution spins around to destroy "seperation of church and state" to which, if passed, NO NSUN MEMBER WILL HAVE ANY SEPERATION.


NOTING that legal guardian's, or state's choice regarding minor's religion can in fact be a probable violation of UN Resolution #26 should person change religion,

While a minor, within the guardians household, UN Resolution #26 does not apply, it only applies to governments.


ACKNOWLEDGING legal basis and good intent of legal guardians as to choice of religion of minor in care,

It does no such thing, it seeks to make illegal such basis. (Talk about deception).


NOTING WITH REGRET inability of states to ensure protection of minor from religious intolerance, through their own or minor's legal guardians' beliefs , as defined in UN RESOLUTION #25,

So you make intollerance of all religion a basic tenent of law?


GUIDED BY intentions put forth in UN Resolutions #19, and #51,

No, you're not.


RECOGNIZING that practice can be used by states to create and/or support religious conflicts,

Not all states, many of us have seperation clauses. (which this resolution violates).

(---)
THE UN URGES its members a:
ban on recruitment of minors into all religious institutions.[/quote]

No. No definition of recruitment; and I will not ban religions centered around familial duties.


ban on practice of religion by minors, which include but are not limited to:


Protecting them? By banning them from practicing any religion? Here's your little lie... Deception #3 in total.


1) religious prayers in any form in any place, public or private

Minors can't pray, because you wish to take their freedom away.


2) attendance of sermons, open forums, gatherings hosted by religious institutions or their members in which beliefs of particular religions are emphasized

Which describes all formats of worship within particular religions. Once again, banning children from any sort of faith or worship... Taking more of their rights away.



Which, again, describes many forms of religion worship (such as communion). Taking more rights away from them.

[quote]
4) religious laws that are incongruent with laws of nation, or of UN, or public ethics

So much for any form of seperation.

Not only have a charges you with liying and basic deceit... But the charges bear out well.

You, sir, DO NOT BELIEVE IN SEPERATION of church and state.

You, sir, DO NOT SEEK TO PROTECT MINORS, you seek to make their practice of any religion illegal.

You, sir, are a liar and deceiver, and the free nations, who could assist in seperation clauses, recognize you for what you really are.

The charges stick.

Prayer, by any member of this great Republic, shall not be banned.

Minors, shall not be barred from attending religious services and worship.

Minors shall not be barred from learning under their parents tutelage and faith.

And, BTW, I have let you talk; your talk is what got you where you are... and Your talk is illegal, deceitful and full of lies... At which point, now, we want no part of your sick, tyrannical government.

This Republic will have no part in the government usurpation of Religion.

Having considered all the arguments, I am withdrawing support of this proposal and apologise to all who may feel offended by it. It was never my intention. (OOC: Is there a way to remove a proposal?)

I have submitted a new proposal that is truer to the intentions I had stated earlier. You can view and discuss it here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=381473).

I would like to thank Wang Chun, DemonLordEnigma, New Tyrollia, Florida Oranges, TilEnca, Tuesday Heights, Information Traders, Liberal Weiners, Reason and Reality, Isisamos, Kurlumbenus, Frisbeeteria, and Faithful Servants for their sound judgements and reasonable objections. I would also like to note Tekania's objection and weak attempts at scare tactics. May practice make perfect.