NationStates Jolt Archive

Feel Free to Express Your Opinions

This is not the submitted version but the corrected version which will be submitted once the deadline of the previous proposal expires.
No Forced Religion
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Moral Decency

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Nihilistic Robots

Description: 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,

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",

UNDERSTANDING however the parent's religious duty and right to determine the minor's religion,

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS URGES its member nations to limit the recruitment and initiation by religious institutions of minors to those minors that are able to give an informed consent and/or those minors whose parent/s have expressed consent.

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS ALSO URGES its member nations to curb abusive practices toward minors by religious institutions that have the effect of preventing those minors from being able to give an informed consent as to the practice of religion.

To be Submitted by Nihilistic Robots On: Fri Dec 17 2004

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS URGES its member nations to limit the recruitment by religious institutions of minors to those minors that are able to give an informed consent.
Limiting anything is not Human Rights, it's Moral Decency. You don't want minors exposed to religion. That's imposing your morals on everyone that's not a child, not granting human rights on children.

Bad idea, bad category, bad proposal.

We agree with Frisbeeteria.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

I have to say, the delegate from New Tyrollia is quite saddened by this turn of events.
This is, quite obviously, a reincarnation of the 'Agnostic Child Act', which has been debated most strenuously in these forums. Debated quite strenuously against, might I add, for good reasons that I am too weary to repeat.
Are we now to repeat this again? For it seems nothing more than the previous proposal, albeit in a more subtle and insidious form. Oh, and I cannot ignore that it now attempts to use Resolution #26 as cover as well. While I am pleased to think that you might have listened to my previous comment, in which I spoke of that article in relation to the 'Agnostic Child Act', I can't help but feel dismayed that you have overlooked both the intent of my words, and of that article. Allow me to quote it again, for clarity.
"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."
That this would be used to justify the prevention of parents bringing up their children in their chosen faith, seems to me both a stretch and a perversion of it's intent. Perhaps in the same manner that you seem to have misunderstood this article, you also misunderstood the rest of my words. I had hoped that we, as a group, could help you turn what was (and now is, again) an unpassable proposal into something valid, and workable. I informed you that while many lauded your intent, we would not brook the passage of a resolution that would deny a family it's ability to practice religion within it's home, and to teach that religion to it's younger members. To turn away and attempt to pass the same resolution again, comes as a slap to our pro-offered hand.
Nevertheless, we offer the hand again. Although New Tyrollia will fight this proposal, and fight hard, we are still willing to work with you, and the rest of this noble body, to craft something that ensures a child's right to avoid indoctrination without trampling upon the liberties we hold so dear.
We hope that this time, you are willing to talk as well.

That's imposing your morals on everyone that's not a child, not granting human rights on children.

Ok, so this bill is forcing you to not force your children into religion.

That's like saying that if I want the laws changed so everyone is able to voice their opinion, I am forcing that view upon others. It's not a matter of "forcing" views on others when it comes to freedom. Freedoms are by definition is not forced, but observed.

Talbania supports this proposal completely and unconditionally.

Ok, so this bill is forcing you to not force your children into religion.

Freedoms are by definition is not forced, but observed.
No, it's removing by force of law the parent's ability to raise their child as they see fit. Do we want UN law mandating carrots or peas be served with every meal?

While I appreciate the sentiment, this is nanny-state imposition of the worst kind. It's a proposal AGAINST freedom.

I fear the delegate from Talbania does not grasp the possible implications of this proposal, as it is here in it's subtler form. The problem arises due to this:
'limit the recruitment by religious institutions of minors to those minors that are able to give an informed consent.'
which prevents anyone who is minor, and 'unable to give informed consent', from practicing their families religion. To understand all the implications and effects of this, I urge you (and all others who are new to this debate) to read The Agnostic Child Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=380820) debate.

No, it's removing by force of law the parent's ability to raise their child as they see fit. Do we want UN law mandating carrots or peas be served with every meal?

While I appreciate the sentiment, this is nanny-state imposition of the worst kind. It's a proposal AGAINST freedom.

Yes, I see your point on this, I apologize for my abruptness.

I fear the delegate from Talbania does not grasp the possible implications of this proposal, as it is here in it's subtler form. The problem arises due to this:
'limit the recruitment by religious institutions of minors to those minors that are able to give an informed consent.'
which prevents anyone who is minor, and 'unable to give informed consent', from practicing their families religion. To understand all the implications and effects of this, I urge you (and all others who are new to this debate) to read The Agnostic Child Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=380820) debate.

Yes, I see there's a lot I have missed on this issue. I shall have to think on this.

Do we want UN law mandating carrots or peas be served with every meal?Is there a UN resolution violated by not serving them?

New Tyrollia, I had read your recommendations in the previous forum and would like you to have this, article III and IV of the previous proposal, wel, cleared of the garbage of the previousl:
Article III:
RECALLING THAT, in the UN Resolutions #26 titled "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance,

ALSO NOTING the NSUN's commitment to give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education outlined in UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #28 titled "Free Education",

FIRMLY COMMITTED to upholding the freedom of choice as outlined by UN Resolutions #53 titled "Universal Freedom of Choice",

FULLY AWARE that the freedom of choice is further served by information regarding the availability of choices and details regarding individual choices,

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATION SUPPORTS the education of minors regarding the following:

1) firstly and foremostly, the multitude of different religions of the NATIONSTATES world,
2) the availability of access to the religions, if pressed by time and budgetary constraints, the more accessible religions, however noting plurality,
3) the more notable by-laws, traditions, practices and ideologies of the religions mentioned above,
4) the duties and priviledges of practitioners of the religions mentioned above,

Article IV:
IN SUPPORT of the educational program mentioned in Article III, the United Nations

AUTHORIZES the creation of A INTERNATIONAL DATABASE OF RELIGIONS that may be availed at the embassies of its regional delegates. All religions are encouraged to register through the submission of the following information:

1) name of religion
2) location of its closest places of worship
3) the more notable by-laws, traditions, practices and ideologies,
4) and the duties and priviledges of practitioners.

AWARE that the information will be verified and if found to be inconsistent with actual facts, the religion's entry will be stricken from the database and will not be allowed to register for a year, unless the information was sent in error or by fraudulent or unauthorized persons. Also note that religions whose active religious laws are in violation of current laws of the UN will be mentioned as such, but should not be subjected to any discrimination in the inclusion and unbiasness in teachings.

AWARE of the necessary costs for the implementation of this program, the United Nations requests that all member states allocate funds for the proper operation of the education program.Hope it helps. Frankly, I want to make other types of proposals. If I post another one about religion, people are going to call for my lynching....oh, wait...they have.

Well, in light of the other thread on this subject, I'm going to have to flip-flop on this one.

If I post another one about religion, people are going to call for my lynching....oh, wait...they have.
[OOC] Here's the thing - I agree with you about parents not brainwashing their children. I got that treatment, and yet found the strength of character at age 14 to walk away from the Church and its teaching. I didn't need national or international law to protect me. I found my own epiphany without government help, and that made it all the more potent and effective.

I don't object to the principle, just the idea that the State needs to protect me from my parents. They accepted my choice with reluctance, not because of a mandate, but because they were good parents. Sometimes you just have to trust to that.

I agree with the sentiment, however imposing laws and regulations is impractical at best and oppressive at worst.

Possible compromise:

How about a declaration merely encouraging religious groups and individuals, in the name of open-mindedness and tolerance, and of belief being more valuable if discovered freely, to avoid indoctrinating children and to step back and let them come to their own conclusions about theology and philosophy if and when they feel ready?

How about banning forced conversion, brain washing ect. on all individuals?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

How about I add "or the expressed consent of legal guardian"? That way only the state or unauthorized individuals can't force the recruitment of the minor.

I understand the 3 strikes rule. but is there a limit to how many proposals I make?

That would alleviate most of my concerns.

And no, there is no limit to how many proposals you can make, but to have multiple versions of the same proposal repeated in the que is very annoying. That's why in the future, you might want to try posting a draft version of a proposal in the forums first, and only submiting one copy once you've listend to the debate on it. ;)

Thanks! I will definitely do that on controvertial issues.

In the spirit of unorthodoxed ideas, I have submitted a new draft proposal on gun control, feel free to check it out.

This one is certainly of better calibre than the previous.

I'll commend the author in not trying to outright ban religious practices by minors, finally, and moving into a much lighter area.

The part about "recruitment" still irks me though; because in the back of my mind, some small part is going "ok, so what is meant by recruitment?".

To bring up examples, Reformed Presbyterians are pedobaptists; they baptise infants, and in public ceremony the parents, make a "commitment before God" in the raising and upbringing of the child, and the entire congregation in assembly pledges to assist the parents in what ever capacity available in the raising of the child... The parents, and the entire congregational body entering into a covenant of sorts to raise this child.... Would this resolution be attempting to make such familial religious ceremonies illegal?

Thanks! I will definitely do that on controvertial issues.
They're all controversial issues.

Nobody will steal your text (and if they did, prior posting on the forums is proof enough for Mods to remove the thieves' work), so why not just start here every time?

The Empire of Shazbotdom will not force anyone to become a part of any religion and if the parents want their kids to go to a certain religious facility then we are not obligated to stop them. We pride ourselves on our seperation of Church and State, we will vote this proposal down if it ever comes to a vote of all UN Member Nations.

Limiting anything is not Human Rights, it's Moral Decency. You don't want minors exposed to religion. That's imposing your morals on everyone that's not a child, not granting human rights on children.

Bad idea, bad category, bad proposal.

I agree.

Wasn't this already submitted once?

First, to Tuesday Heights, this proposal is an attempt to improve on the Agnostic Child proposal, which even the originator has abandoned in that form.

Now, as to the present proposal:

No Forced Religion
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights

I think most here agree that this is more a matter of Moral Decency than Human Rights, although one man's "freedom to" is another man's "freedom from".

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Nihilistic Robots

This part's alright. :)

Description: 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,

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",

I think where the train wreck occurs is the lack of understanding that minors cannot have exactly the same rights as adults, and that some of amount of indoctrination is utterly necessary for minors to be civil, social, productive members of society. This proposal (and its ancestor) is concerned with the noble sentiment that (emphasis Wang Chun's) unnecessary or excessive indoctrination of minors into a particular religion is a Bad Thing, insofar as it diminishes those minors' ability to make a free and informed choice as to religious affiliation or lack thereof as an adult. "As the twig is bent, so grows the tree", and all that.

Yet, as we have seen from these debates, adults must be free to both have children and to practice religion, and the combination necessarily constitutes indoctination of children into the religion of their parents. Whether one considers this a necessary evil or a necessary good or neither, one must concede that it is necessary.

The question arises as to what extent this practice constitutes abuse of the child, to the extent that the child's ability to make an informed decision as to the practice of religion as an adult is permanently impaired. Note that this is primarily psychological in nature. Passing legislation on the abilities of parents in NSUN member states to make their children permanent members of the Church of You'llbedarnedifyoueverleave has no bearing on this. If the psychological "damage" (indoctrination) occurs but formal indoctrination does not, those children will grow up believing that their souls are in mortal peril if they do not immediately, upon reaching the age of majority, become full and permanent members of the Church of You'llbedarnedifyoureverleave. Moreover, they will cling to this belief all their adult lives. However, if this psycolugical "damage" does not occur but children are formally inducted as members anyway, then upon reaching adulthood some will leave and others will not, both as they see fit. Wang Chun presumes this second state is what the author of this proposal desires.

But how are parents (or any institution) for that matter able to permanently cripple a child's mind? It simply cannot happen in any society that values the free exchange of ideas. It can only happen in a closed society, one in which one is punished merely for expressing "unclean" or "forbidden" thoughts. If that sounds like I'm describing a cult, I am. And yes, despite NSUN resolutions to the contrary, some of our member states do somewhat resemble large cults, with membership in the millions instead of in the dozens or hundreds.

But getting back to the resolution at hand, what is to be done about this? Restricting the rights of parents to practice their religion of choice in free societies is at best, counterproductive. And, claiming that doing so violates the minor's rights under the NSUN Bill of Rights is an exercise in claiming that if you call a tail a leg, horses will now have five legs. Were an adult restricted in the same way that a parent necessarily must restrict a small child, that would be a gross violation of that adult's civil rights, virtual if not actual slavery. So long as a child is ultimately free to change his religion as an adult, that child's parent's choice of a temporary religion does no lasting harm.

Considering all that I've written above, I propose the following change to the third paragraph of the resolution:

NOTING that, in fact, acts by a minor's parents, legal guardian, or state that have the effect of imparing the minor's ability to express a free choice of religion upon reaching adulthood will in fact be violations of Article 1 of UN Resolution #26 titled "The Universal Bill of Rights",

Now, proceeding with the rest of the proposal:

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS URGES its member nations to limit the recruitment by religious institutions of minors to those minors that are able to give an informed consent.

As discussed before, mere recruitment of minors does little harm. What you seek to prevent is excessive, abusive religious indoctrination of minors. So, let's call a spade a spade. Moreover, the best medicine against such indoctrination is a society founded on religious tolerance and the free exchange of ideas, including religious ideas. Therefore, Wang Chun proposes the following changes to the rest of the proposal:

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS URGES its member nations to curb abusive practices toward minors by religious institutions that have the effect of preventing those minors from being able to give an informed consentas to the practice of religion upon reaching adulthood.

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS FURTHER URGES its member nations to promote the free exchange of religious thought so that no one religion or single philosophy of religion or single religious perspective is practiced or held to the exclusion of all other religions, philosophies, or perspectives.

Made a new draft. Wang Chun, Freebisteria, New Tyrollia, thanks for the ideas on changes.

Wang Chun: I liked the last paragraph but I feel it should be a different proposal, perhaps similar to what New Tyrollia had mentioned in the previous forum (whose name will not be uttered by my people) regarding free education regarding religions. I have posted in this forum intended articles III & IV of the previous proposal (whose name will not be uttered by my people...let's just say it was built by a committee of seemingly harmless good ideas :(...) with those intentions.

committee = trainwreck

I added parent instead of legal guardian, because in the event the minor is abandoned or orphaned, he/she becomes the charge of the state, which can be a loophole on the fundamental idea of this proposal. Parents obviously have strong connections to the minor, and are more likely to have good intentions regarding him/her.

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS URGES its member nations to curb abusive practices toward minors by religious institutions that have the effect of preventing those minors from being able to give an informed consentas to the practice of religion upon reaching adulthood.

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS FURTHER URGES its member nations to promote the free exchange of religious thought so that no one religion or single philosophy of religion or single religious perspective is practiced or held to the exclusion of all other religions, philosophies, or perspectives.

That, I like.

That, I like.

Agreed. I think it's the best wording I've seen so far.

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS URGES its member nations to curb abusive practices toward minors by religious institutions that have the effect of preventing those minors from being able to give an informed consentas to the practice of religion upon reaching adulthood.

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS FURTHER URGES its member nations to promote the free exchange of religious thought so that no one religion or single philosophy of religion or single religious perspective is practiced or held to the exclusion of all other religions, philosophies, or perspectives.

This is a good compromise.

If it's ok with Nihilistic Robots (or perhaps you two could work together if s/he likes your approach), I'd suggest you start your own thread to refine that text for submission as a proposal. Can I also suggest that if you do decide to make this a proposal, you include an urging to religious groups to restrict their attempts at indoctrination of children (see my post earlier) (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7705250&postcount=12)?

First, to Tuesday Heights, this proposal is an attempt to improve on the Agnostic Child proposal, which even the originator has abandoned in that form.

Ah, thank-you... I wasn't sure which one was actually being fought for. Thanks!

No problemo. Though, I kind of used the first paragraph in my new draft. maybe just some of it...ok, a lot of it.:)

By the way, if any of you got any spare time, feel free to tear up my new and hopefully improved gun control bill here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=381520&page=1). Waiting for any posts on loopholes. Thanks! ;)

Submitted:
No Forced Religion
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Nihilistic Robots

Description:
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,

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",

UNDERSTANDING however the parent's religious duty and right to determine the minor's religion,

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS URGES its member nations to limit the recruitment and initiation by religious institutions of minors to those minors that are able to give an informed consent and/or those minors whose parent/s have expressed consent.

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS ALSO URGES its member nations to curb abusive practices toward minors by religious institutions that have the effect of preventing those minors from being able to give an informed consent as to the practice of religion.

Status: Lacking Support (requires 146 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Dec 24 2004Currently page 24 in proposals, Xmas Eve Deadline...

We'd like to see this extended to all people, not just children.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

If you have to redraft, we'd like you to address a couple of things.

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

Could this be amended to "AFFIRMING that theological beliefs are held by many people as an integral part of their humanity"? Many people have beliefs that do not match any particular religion, so "theological beliefs" more accurately describes what you're getting at. And some people are fairly apathetic about religious ideas - who are we to judge their humanity as lacking an integral part?

UNDERSTANDING however the parent's ... right to determine the minor's religion

This clause is a major problem for us. We do not believe that it is right for parents to indoctrinate their children into any religion and actively discourage such practices in _Myopia_. As such, such a statement being put into international law represents a problem for us. Could it be amended to "UNDERSTANDING however that many parents feel they have certain religious duties and may desire to determine the minor's religion"?

All persons, minor or adult, already are protected by the Universal Bill of Rights, but children are at a vulnerable stage, having no means to uphold their own rights. The proposal's main objective is the protection of minors. People of majority age could be able to find methods to avoid forced indoctrination, but children have unformed mindsets that are much more impressionable.

Myopia, good point. Thanks. If I have to submit the proposal again, I will amend them.

Thanks to all for their endorsements.
(OOC: Merry Xmas to all! If you don't celebrate X'mas, well....have a really great weekend then! :) )

Thanks for taking my requests on board.

All persons, minor or adult, already are protected by the Universal Bill of Rights, but children are at a vulnerable stage, having no means to uphold their own rights. The proposal's main objective is the protection of minors. People of majority age could be able to find methods to avoid forced indoctrination, but children have unformed mindsets that are much more impressionable.

Yes, children are vulnerable, but are without rights until capable of excercising them. As children lack the capacity of consent, parents, or guardians, represent the interests of the child, and excercise consent on their behalf, and provide representation for violations of the law committed against the child. Children are owed a duty of responsibility on the part of society not to violate what would be rights, and owed a duty of care and responsibility by parent not to violate what would be rights and uphold the childs interests should such violations occur.

The resolution seems to acknowledge that, given the following:

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS URGES its member nations to limit the recruitment and initiation by religious institutions of minors to those minors that are able to give an informed consent and/or those minors whose parent/s have expressed consent.

The last part negates the entire bill. However, that is not the loophole that really concerns me, but the informed consent aspect.

Being a child, anything it is told is considered information. They are programmed to trust (brain development). So, it will accept information as true the first time it is enlightened to a concept. If someone is speaking and a child hears them say god hates individuals unless they join church x, and if they do not join they will burn in heck, that child considers itself informed, and, given how persuasive the messenger is, parents may not be able to dissuade the child if that is the childs first encounter with religion. However, after being talked to by another with no avail, the child is informed by both sides, but has lready been usurped by the religion. This bill tells AP we, as a UN Nation should accept that, step in between the parent and child, as the child has made a decision with respect to religion. Not to sure that is acceptable. But am interested in a rebuttal that would ease concerns.

(OOC: Merry Xmas to all! If you don't celebrate X'mas, well....have a really great weekend then! :) )

OOC: Merry ChristmaHannuQuanzaka to you as well. And Happy Holidays to others as well:)