NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd be curious to get everyone's critiques on the prayer resolution. What do you think would be the pros and cons?

This would make a much better national issue rather than a UN resolution. But that's just one nation's opinion.

I think you'll find the classic Church vs. State argument at the core of the debate (before it degenerates). To impose prayer on the non-religious is tyranny, but to restrict prayer for the religious is also tyranny. Better left to the 'States.

BTW, if you've already posted a school prayer resolution, you need to post it in the forum. No one has the time to sort through umpteen million proposals to find it.

Well I didn't post one but my UN delegate did. Here is what I was thinking:

1) it does not force people who do not believe in a God to pray
2) it allows people of all religions to pray to their God, does not limit to just one religion
3) there is no such thing as seperation of church and state in NationStates, (neither does it exist in the US in real life if you want to debate that we can but that's not why I'm here today)

It seems as though it would prevent a few people who DON'T believe in any sort of God from pushing THEIR beliefs on the however many millions of people who DO believe in A God. I do believe the current proposal could be reworded to make it more inclusive of all religions and restrict it from being overbearing on the ones who don't have a religion (or have a religion of no religion?).

It ends tomorrow but I do believe this one shows promise, perhaps it can be reworded and tried again.

Freedom Of Religion

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental


Industry Affected: All Businesses


Proposed by: Grobanistas

Description: Currently, the right to pray inside a school building is all but prohibited. We of the Colony of Grobanistas propose that prayer be allowed inside the school building, and that all that attempt to poke fun at those that DO pray, are suspended for no less than a week for intolerance.

We see several benefits to this proposal:

(1) Better moods of students

(2) Better concentration on the part of the student

(3) Less intolerance

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342360

Here's the offical UN proposal writing guide. The proposal would require a serious rewrite to catch most people's attention.

The current proposal gives the UN jurisdiction over local schools, which in my nation, not even the State has much say about. It's too specific in naming a penalty in every school in every nation for transgressions that would be different in nearly every culture.

A better proposal would restrict the rights of UN States to abolish voluntary school prayer. This is a tough issue because of the specifics involved. Not every school has a time and place for such a thing. Think about colleges and universities. Students don't assemble at the same time, necessarily.

Best of luck to you. Even if you don't have the power to submit, you might find a nation willing to sponsor the proposal.

If it were redrafted to be inclusive to public schools only; I would support it.

Though, a principle of eliminating religious tyranry, cannot rest in the state; because it is the state who formulates tyrany. Engrafting the prevention of nations from limiting individual prayer in public buildings and schools is allowed. Since the principle is backed by the Universal Bill of Rights.

Freedom Of Religion

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental


Industry Affected: All Businesses


Proposed by: Grobanistas

I'm kind of suprised that no one else noticed that this is being catagorized as an Environmental resolution. Can anyone explain to me how this could possibly be the correct catagory?

Description: Currently, the right to pray inside a school building is all but prohibited.
Huh?

What?

Where in the list of passed resolutions does it say anything even remotely similar to that?

Methinks someone's been mixing RL and NS again. Just remember that even real-life examples can be extremely incorrect - here in Australia, there is no ban on prayer in schools (unless it disrupts a lesson).

Huh?

What?

Where in the list of passed resolutions does it say anything even remotely similar to that?

Methinks someone's been mixing RL and NS again. Just remember that even real-life examples can be extremely incorrect - here in Australia, there is no ban on prayer in schools (unless it disrupts a lesson).
OOC: In America you can prey silently so you don't disturb people who are, you know, learning. In England, well I went to a church school.

IC: I don't real like the idea that children can prey during lesson time, especially not loudly, if it isn't taken outside the class room. It's too disruptive.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

We're perfectly happy to allow children to pray in schools, but it is treated similarly to other forms of expression, so just as kids shouldn't be talking in lessons, they shouldn't be praying in lessons. We also require that any prayer be totally voluntary and student-led - teachers are not allowed to participate in or lead the children's prayers.

Punishments for bullying and mockery are dealt with on a case-by-case basis by schools, because obviously every case is unique and must be settled appropriately. Imposing a UN-wide standard punishment is a laughably poor solution.

I'm thinking what this really needs to be is a protection of religious freedoms for students, not a prayer in schools resolution. I am planning on reading through all the appropriate threads and then forming a new proposal because I think this could be a good stop-it-before-it-starts resolution. I think you're right about the fact that there hasn't been a resolution in the UN before about prayer but I think the spirit behind this proposal was one of staying on the offensive so you don't have to go defensive. Here are the things I'm thinking need to be included (some of my own ideas, some from the rest of you):

1) protects the rights of the students while at school to
a)pray
b)wear religious symbols/clothing (crosses or other jewelry, head coverings, tshirts with religious phrases etc.)
2) only enforced on public schools leaving private schools to govern as they choose
3) restrictions in case the praying, speech, or clothing is extreme and offending other students (such as praying during aloud during class, over-enthusiastic students attempting to convert someone who does not want to be converted)
4) teachers are allowed to pray with the students, and any student who wishes to not participate has the option of leaving the room

Does anyone see anything wrong with this? I am open to adding more or perhaps taking away. I will work next week on a good wording.

I think you're getting a little too restrictive here...

Nations are pretty diverse... If you're running a religious nation, chances are you've already got the freedom to pray, if not a requirement to. I don't really see a need to intrude ino the policies of those nations who either a) encourage religious freedom by not promoting any single one or b) discourage any religion by banning it. It's the policy they choose.

I'm also unsure about the whole public school/private school thing. When you have a civil rights issue, it's usually a thing in which you are out to improve the universal freedoms of EVERYONE. But not, it seems like you're making the public schools allow (even encourage) promotion of religion, while you're letting the private schools ban or persecute or do whatever they want. It's like saying a government employee must raise their kids a certain way, but if they work for a corporation they can do whatever the hell they want... Unless someone can tell me what the fundamental difference between public/private is, in which this law is somehow differently applied, the kind of rights that you're proposing should be UNIVERSAL.

I'm not too sure with the teachers being allowed to pray. Maybe now, with most of us that are either in high school and above, we're at a stage of independent thought where we can figure out things for ourselves. But think about little elementary school kids. If the teacher starts praying, and the majority of the other students do (with most people being religious), a 2nd grader isn't going to have the courage to be the "different" one and leave class while everyone else is in an activity. Even now, for those without a religion, when you're a guest in someone else's home, and the hosts say a prayer before eating a meal, you bow your head or close your eyes too, either as a matter of respect or an urge to conform. You're not going to leave the room in "objection" to the host's religious beliefs. Imagine how that's going to be for elementary school children faced with that kind of situation.

Also, when you're at that same vulnerable age, the words of adults are the words of god (no pun intended). When you're a second grader, you believe EVERYTHING that the teacher says. They're the adult, and you're a little kid who can't really think. When the teacher says something, elementary school students (as opposed to high school or college students) take it literally and without challenge. You can't have the government putting those kinds of thoughts in kids' heads at an age where they can't truly analyze what it really means.

That said, i think your best point is not being on the offensive, in trying to force schools to do something, but to be on the defensive, and guarantee the rights of students.

You would guarantee the right of all students to pray and wear whatever religious attire that they desired, provided that:

a) It isn't derogatory or offensive to others (No hate messages, or those of superiority over other religions)
b) It doesn't interrupt classroom activities... Which would mean no praying aloud during class (not because it's praying but because it's simply talking in class)... and yes, students could be persecuted for praying in class on the grounds that they're not paying attention to the teacher. And nothing that's extremely flashy that would disrupt attention (so clothing items too ostentatious... like a giant hat that blocks others' view, or an extremely shiny or light-up pendant, would be out of the question)

In the end, the prayer thing's not going to get you much anywhere... Pretty much any prayer (or any speech, for that matter) in class would disrupt the class. You'd gaurantee the right to prayer at recess and hold extra-curricular activities like a [Insert Religious Adjective Here] Club.

You may have a point in the clothing thing. For example, in France, where they've banned the Muslim head-scarves... not because they're distractive but simply because it's a religious item. You could gaurantee the right for students to express religion, so long as it's not deragatory or make a superior statement to others.

As for clothing; flowing, overly restrictive, clothes can be a health and safety hazard. Can you wear them while boiling liquid over a Bunsen burner?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Public Schools are government run, and accessible to anyone: As such, this resolution is an extention of the Universal Bill of Rights Article 1.

Private schools are inherantly discriminatory in their acceptance of students, and entrance and exit from the usage of the facilities is subject to the private policies of the school.

Private schools can by default do what they want, and teach how they want, because they are private.

Public schools cannot do what they want, their curriculum is government controled, because they are publicly run.

As such, dictation to a Private school would be a violation of UBR Article 1.

At the same time, opening up the expression of religion by students in public school is a furtherment of UBR Article 1. (I Would even go as far as saying member nations which ban the expression of religion by students in public schools are violating UBR Article 1).

There is no discrepancy of principle here.

I recognize there's a difference between public/private schools from a National Government standpoint. But the issue that's being made here is that students are being OPPRESSED. And if that's the case, shouldn't the policy then be expanded to ALL students, not just picking and choosing which ones?

For example, if the N.S.U.N. passed a resolution limiting foresting, is it going to apply ONLY to government-run lumber companies, or to ALL lumber companies?

If this is going to be approved, it should affect all schools, not just public ones.

I recognize there's a difference between public/private schools from a National Government standpoint. But the issue that's being made here is that students are being OPPRESSED. And if that's the case, shouldn't the policy then be expanded to ALL students, not just picking and choosing which ones?

For example, if the N.S.U.N. passed a resolution limiting foresting, is it going to apply ONLY to government-run lumber companies, or to ALL lumber companies?

If this is going to be approved, it should affect all schools, not just public ones.

:headbang:

Some people are soooooo dense.

No, no, no, and again, no.... It is obvious from your illustration, you do not understand this at all.

If this resolution impliments policy on a private school, it violates the UBR.

A Private school, is just that private. Attendance is not government controled; it runs by its own policies, and is funded by its customer base. People choose to pay for the service, and they decide upon it by its policies.
Private schools exist, because people like their policies. If someone does not, then they move their kid to another school.

The same is not true of public schools. Which is the real issue. They are run and operated by the government. There is little choice in attendance, and policy and funds are forced from the community in general.

It has to be restricted to public schools only. Any attempt at dictating religion upon Private schools, and I will not support this proposal. (Because such a proposal is illegal, as far as I am concerned).

The problem with prayer in school is some parents don't want their children to be exposed to religions other than their own, they view it as temptation. It's the same kind of reasoning as behind not letting children watch porn
However, i personally believe both are stupid and we should allow both prayer and porn

Given the diversity of government and religion styles worldwide, as well as standing UN resolutions, I am very doubtful that a bill regulating prayer in schools would be passable. Perhaps a less restrictive bill would go over better, such as one aiming to ensure the right of students to engage in nondisruptive personal devotions during their free time at school (if the government grants student free time). Then again, that might not go so well. It's touchy business, this church/state stuff.

I don't have time to look up previous Resolutions, but don't the two (or three) Resolutions granting freedom of religion already deal with this? Especially that Rights of Minorities and Women which includes the feel-good clap-trap about nothing being better than anything else?

Oh, and ENVIRONMENTAL?!

1) protects the rights of the students while at school to
a)pray

Ok, if I can impose reasonable restrictions.


b)wear religious symbols/clothing (crosses or other jewelry, head coverings, tshirts with religious phrases etc.)

...

3) restrictions in case the praying, speech, or clothing is extreme and offending other students (such as praying during aloud during class, over-enthusiastic students attempting to convert someone who does not want to be converted)

This is too tricky. IMO, there is no right not to be offended (otherwise we'd never get anything done), the real issue is disruption to lessons - therefore this is very subjective. I think the most practical solution would be to "RECOMMEND that state schools allow students to wear religious apparell, within reason". This way, you allow schools or nations to handle specific problems appropriately, and you also don't mess up those who have school uniforms - if you have a policy of no freedom of clothes expression, then it's discriminatory to let off just religious students.

2) only enforced on public schools leaving private schools to govern as they choose

Fine. I think you need to include a definition of private and public schools if you're going to use those terms, because in the UK "public schools" refers to posh private schools like Eton.

4) teachers are allowed to pray with the students

No.

and any student who wishes to not participate has the option of leaving the room

Fine. But they don't have to leave the room. They could have different prayers. Or they could sit and discuss philosophy, or theology. Or they could talk about something else completely unrelated to religion. As long as nobody's causing major disruption to anyone else.

If you allow prayer in school it will only be a matter of time before a civil rights lawyer sues to allow Satanic children human sacrifice in school. America already has a teacher shortage. :D

I don't real like the idea that children can prey during lesson time

Me neither. While you could make the point that it is cultural expression, cannibalism should definitely not be practiced in school.

(Sorry, I know it's just a typo. Couldn't resist.)

In response to Tekania's point, the UBR only says "All human beings have the right to choose [to] worship any faith." It does not protect religious expression, only the right to choose one's beliefs. Thus, it is your right to worship the ancient Egyptian sun god. But you are going beyond that right if you decide to conduct human sacrifice to him, and you can be prosecuted for that.

In reality, the UBR doesn't protect religious expression at all. In a technical sense it wouldn't a violation of Article 1 to ban public prayer, or to introduce similar legislation as what France did earlier this year.

And that's another thing we should consider - as in France, many nations have diverse religious communities living together and sharing the same public space. The French motivation for the legislation was to prevent possible religious unrest from gratituous personal religious expression, and basically people rubbing their religion in each others' face. So they banned things like wearing big Christian crosses, Muslim female headscarves, etc. from schools, though personally I think it went a bit too far in banning Sikh turbans, which are only practical considering their religious prohibition against cutting hair. So you have to consider that some nations have valid public order concerns if this resolution passes.

That said, not all religions require a visible, outward expression. As long as it is not mandated by that person's religion, restrictions shouldn't be a violation of the UBR. The Sikh religion forbids cutting hair. To force Sikhs to cut their hair would be a violation of UBR. But there's nothing in the Christian faith that says everyone must wear crosses. So banning cross necklaces would not be a violation - that's my interpretation of it.

IOh, and ENVIRONMENTAL?!
You know Hack, I think that you and I might just be the only people to have noticed this. Or at least we're the only two who pointed it out.

Well MAYBE if there were MORE catergories, it could be properly placed?! :headbang:

Wow I am very excited about all the opinions we're getting...hopefully we can get this done right so that everyone is okay with it.

Also, I GET THE THING WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE!!! :p She said she couldn't find a good category but I'm thinking there has to be something else.

Working on the new proposition! If anyone else has a concern, raise it now or forever hold your peace! :)

Well, since it's about improving the rights of students, I'd say "Human Rights" would be a good place to start.