NationStates Jolt Archive

Peace to all.

The nations of the region God have re-submitted a re-written version of a "Religious Freedom" resolution which came close but did not reach a quorum earlier.

We hope we have resolved some of the wording that made some nations confused before. This proposal has been commented on and helped by nations from other regions also, some religious, and some secular.

We believe it strengthens Human Rights and will benefit all nations, and all people.

We hope everyone reads it and thinks about it, and that delegates endorse it.

We believe in Human Rights for ALL people, of all beliefs, and we believe this proposal strengthens and makes those rights more clear.


Please try to read it through!
Many people worked on this!

Our thanks,
Al-Shahhadh


TEXT:


"Religious Freedom"
Category: Human Rights (Significant)


Recognizing Article 1 of The Universal Bill of Rights (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #26),

which states, in full,

“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.”

We, The United Nations of NationStates hereby affirm “Religious Freedom” as that specific human and civil right referred to in Article 1, and do further clarify “Religious Freedom” as:

The right of all people to hold to and manifest publicly or privately, any beliefs regarding ultimate questions of human, physical or spiritual nature without substantial interference, or fear of substantial interference, by any party, state or non-state.

Further, we affirm:

To “hold beliefs” includes the rights to hold no belief, including beliefs contrary local practice and tradition.

To “hold beliefs” includes the right to publicly (or privately) change beliefs and the practices which follow from them.

To “hold beliefs publicly” includes the right to public worship and other public manifestations of faith (such as dress, grooming, language and ritual practice).

To “hold beliefs publicly” includes the right of parents and legitimate guardians to publicly and/or communally (or privately and domestically) educate and instruct those for whom they are responsible within any system of belief, so long as no undo physical or psychological coercion is employed therein.

To hold beliefs “publicly” includes the right to publicly (or privately) proselytize or promote one’s beliefs, so long as no physical or psychological coercion is employed therein.

The United Nations hereby recognizes the above cited elements as integral to “Religious Freedom” as referenced in Article 1 of The Universal Bill of Rights (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #26), and remind the body that all UN member states are firmly obliged to promote and enforce respect for these rights, as they are obliged to promote and enforce all those rights enumerated in The Universal Bill of Rights.


NOTE: Nations and local governments retain their right to regulate, in their lawful jurisdictions, their fulfillment of this resolution for appropriate cause: public health and safety, budgetary constraints, community standards and traditions, etc., so long as that regulation DOES NOT constitute, by intent or implementation, the SUBSTANTIAL DENIAL of any of the rights specified above.

The C.R.o.T. will approve your proposal. And pending final decision by Futura Regional vote, vote for it should it reach quorum.

The right of all people to hold to and manifest publicly or privately, any beliefs regarding ultimate questions of human, physical or spiritual nature without substantial interference, or fear of substantial interference, by any party, state or non-state.

No. Religion is a very sensitive thing, especially in places where great diversity of religion exist. Allowing a free-for-all is practically asking for sectarian unrest.

To “hold beliefs” includes the rights to hold no belief, including beliefs contrary local practice and tradition.

So if the "local practice" is that human sacrifice is illegal... they have the right to carry it out?

To “hold beliefs” includes the right to publicly (or privately) change beliefs and the practices which follow from them.

Ah, me likey.

To “hold beliefs publicly” includes the right to public worship and other public manifestations of faith (such as dress, grooming, language and ritual practice).

See my first two comments. Combine them together.

To “hold beliefs publicly” includes the right of parents and legitimate guardians to publicly and/or communally (or privately and domestically) educate and instruct those for whom they are responsible within any system of belief, so long as no undo physical or psychological coercion is employed therein.

I think the word you're looking for is "undue physical or psychological coercion", but in my opinion the word should be omitted altogether. Lots of cults and such use psych-pressure in recruitment. Also, you could say that the psychological significance of a parent would give their "endorsement" of a religion quite a bit of weight with a child. And then imagine this scene.

Policeman: Hi there, little girl.
Girl: Hello.
Policeman: Did your parents make you come to church today?
Girl: Yes.
Policeman: Did you want to?
Girl: No, but daddy said I wouldn't get to watch TV if I didn't.
Policeman (to girl's father): That's a $500 fine, Mr. Roberts. "Undue psychological or physical coercion."

To hold beliefs “publicly” includes the right to publicly (or privately) proselytize or promote one’s beliefs, so long as no physical or psychological coercion is employed therein.

Again, anything can be considered coercion. And again, in religiously diverse communities, proselytizing can cause some serious friction. If you aren't a Muslim and live next to a mosque, you would object to the mosque setting up a big loudspeaker system for the call to prayer. This is the kind of thing which causes problems.

NOTE: Nations and local governments retain their right to regulate, in their lawful jurisdictions, their fulfillment of this resolution for appropriate cause: public health and safety, budgetary constraints, community standards and traditions, etc., so long as that regulation DOES NOT constitute, by intent or implementation, the SUBSTANTIAL DENIAL of any of the rights specified above.

Putting people in prison for carrying out human sacrifice, which we'd consider first-degree murder, would count as substantial denial. In fact, while your intent is to allow some measure of national self-determination, this actually removes it. Anyone who gets upset with any restriction at all can sue for the restriction to be removed under this resolution, which can be problematic for reasons I've already explained.

How will you compensate for the subjectiveness created in interpreting the difference of the fine lined items of religious toleration and illegal activities?

The right of all people to hold to and manifest publicly or privately, any beliefs regarding ultimate questions of human, physical or spiritual nature without substantial interference, or fear of substantial interference, by any party, state or non-state.

I'm sorry, but this is in violation of free speech and separation of church and state.

The right of all people to hold to and manifest publicly or privately, any beliefs regarding ultimate questions of human, physical or spiritual nature without substantial interference, or fear of substantial interference, by any party, state or non-state.
No. Religion is a very sensitive thing, especially in places where great diversity of religion exist. Allowing a free-for-all is practically asking for sectarian unrest.
Sorry, this and most of the rest of this post is sort of silly.


This is a well written proposal.

Religious freedom is asking for "sectarian unrest"?
And the alternative is?
State religion?
No religious freedom?


As for the rest, it seems you're throwing up arguments for the sake of argument. This proposal is about the freedom to practice your religion as it is practiced, within the limits of public safety, national law and the Universal Bill of Human Rights, etc.

Human sacrifice, police accosting children... this is not what it is about.
Give it some respect.


How will you compensate for the subjectiveness created in interpreting the difference of the fine lined items of religious toleration and illegal activities?
All laws call for interpretation by the courts. This "law" makes room for that. There is really not much more that you can do. Again, unlike most proposals here, this is very carefully written. I am very impressed with it, and really wish nations would give it as much thought as its writers did.




The right of all people to hold to and manifest publicly or privately, any beliefs regarding ultimate questions of human, physical or spiritual nature without substantial interference, or fear of substantial interference, by any party, state or non-state.
I'm sorry, but this is in violation of free speech and separation of church and state.

What?

Did you read it?
The right of people to hold religious beliefs and practice them is "in violation of free speech and separation of church and state"?


The 12 Sovereign Tribes of Farmers and Herders supports this proposal and hopes the quality of this discussion improves.



The 12 Sovereign Tribes of Farmers and Herders
"All Wealth From the Soil!"

What?

Did you read it?
The right of people to hold religious beliefs and practice them is "in violation of free speech and separation of church and state"?

The right of all people to hold to and manifest publicly or privately, any beliefs regarding ultimate questions of human, physical or spiritual nature without substantial interference, or fear of substantial interference, by any party, state or non-state.

So, what, I'm supposed to stifle the freedom of speech of those who do not agree with the religion manifested publicly because their freedom is "interference" by "non-state"? And how do I stop government officials from proselytising and violating the separation of church and state if they have a "right" to "manifest publicly" when that is seen as "interference" by "state"?

This is a poor resolution.

To Kelssek
They say you're quite deadly
And it's true
But we have to say
We agree with you

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States,
She Who Lost a Bet

The regional government of Atheist Empire does endorse this proposal.

It has been made clear several times in the past that there is no such thing as a perfect, fit-for-all resolution for religious freedoms. This one provides for interpretation with national and regional courts. It does provide protection for those with faith and those without faith. Obviously, with the onslaught of religious regions' resolutions endorsing the enforcement of state religion, it is refreshing to see the tolerant ideas of the region of God in a UN proposal.

It is the opinion of the government of Newtonstein that no contigency can prevent a government from "proselytizing." However, the important item in this resolution is that no one can be persecuted for their beliefs nor can those beliefs be interfered by any person or party.

The resolution provides for some level of flexibility as need may have it. But the resolution as it stands is sufficiently moderate and well-thought.

Newtonstein
Foreign Minister
Atheist Empire

Peace to all.

The nations of the region God have re-submitted a re-written version of a "Religious Freedom" resolution which came close but did not reach a quorum earlier.

Irony: A resolution encouraging religious freedom from a region named God.

We hope we have resolved some of the wording that made some nations confused before. This proposal has been commented on and helped by nations from other regions also, some religious, and some secular.

We believe it strengthens Human Rights and will benefit all nations, and all people.

We hope everyone reads it and thinks about it, and that delegates endorse it.

We believe in Human Rights for ALL people, of all beliefs, and we believe this proposal strengthens and makes those rights more clear.

We'll see. Now, let me look it over and see if I tear it to pieces.

Please try to read it through!
Many people worked on this!

Our thanks,
Al-Shahhadh

Good for them. Not entirely relevant, but good for them.

TEXT:


Recognizing Article 1 of The Universal Bill of Rights (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #26),

which states, in full,

“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.”

So far, not bad.

We, The United Nations of NationStates hereby affirm “Religious Freedom” as that specific human and civil right referred to in Article 1, and do further clarify “Religious Freedom” as:

The right of all people to hold to and manifest publicly or privately, any beliefs regarding ultimate questions of human, physical or spiritual nature without substantial interference, or fear of substantial interference, by any party, state or non-state.

So those death-cult people I've been dealing with are free to have human sacrifices out in the open? And I'm not allowed to stop them from breaking the law? I already dislike.

Further, we affirm:

To “hold beliefs” includes the rights to hold no belief, including beliefs contrary local practice and tradition.

To “hold beliefs” includes the right to publicly (or privately) change beliefs and the practices which follow from them.

Not bad.

To “hold beliefs publicly” includes the right to public worship and other public manifestations of faith (such as dress, grooming, language and ritual practice).

Once again, death cults being allowed to do human sacrifice in public and this makes it illegal for me to interfere. After all, that is a religious ritual.

To “hold beliefs publicly” includes the right of parents and legitimate guardians to publicly and/or communally (or privately and domestically) educate and instruct those for whom they are responsible within any system of belief, so long as no undo physical or psychological coercion is employed therein.

In other words, they can but they can't, as teaching any form of belief to a child before a certain age is a form os psychological coercion due to their inability to question the beliefs in most cases. Self-contradicting.

To hold beliefs “publicly” includes the right to publicly (or privately) proselytize or promote one’s beliefs, so long as no physical or psychological coercion is employed therein.

Define "psychological coercion," as some members of my nation view any form of attempting to teach religious beliefs as psychological coercion.

The United Nations hereby recognizes the above cited elements as integral to “Religious Freedom” as referenced in Article 1 of The Universal Bill of Rights (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #26), and remind the body that all UN member states are firmly obliged to promote and enforce respect for these rights, as they are obliged to promote and enforce all those rights enumerated in The Universal Bill of Rights.

I do not see this as being actually helpful to a nation or in the spirit of those earlier resolutions.

NOTE: Nations and local governments retain their right to regulate, in their lawful jurisdictions, their fulfillment of this resolution for appropriate cause: public health and safety, budgetary constraints, community standards and traditions, etc., so long as that regulation DOES NOT constitute, by intent or implementation, the SUBSTANTIAL DENIAL of any of the rights specified above.

Great. This gives every criminal in my nation a way out of being prosecuted by claiming religious beliefs. All they need is nine budies to back them.

I'm going to take extreme measures here. Further persual of attempting to get this passed will be considered an act of war by my nation. I hate to do this, but this is a case where I see this resolution as a thinly-veiled attempt to be rid of other nations and expand your own. I'm keeping several of my ships on standby with orders to deliver "propaganda" (look up the Sarkarasetan word for it through the search function on this board) to your nation.

The right of all people to hold to and manifest publicly or privately, any beliefs regarding ultimate questions of human, physical or spiritual nature without substantial interference, or fear of substantial interference, by any party, state or non-state.

So, what, I'm supposed to stifle the freedom of speech of those who do not agree with the religion manifested publicly because their freedom is "interference" by "non-state"? And how do I stop government officials from proselytising and violating the separation of church and state if they have a "right" to "manifest publicly" when that is seen as "interference" by "state"?

This is a poor resolution.

I am trying to understand what this problem is.
But I will try to answer.


"So, what, I'm supposed to stifle the freedom of speech of those who do not agree with the religion manifested publicly because their freedom is "interference" by "non-state"? "

Here maybe the thing to look at is "substantial interference".

This is burning your church, or harrasing your kids on the way to their religious school because of their religion, not just someone saying "I think your religion is stupid". Including in the press or books, etc.

That's freedom of speech. Throwing rocks at someone, or burning a cross in front of their synagogue might be "substantial interference" (by a "non-state party").

But this would be up to courts, what is "substantial", just like with any law, as they said above.

Is just calling someone an insulting name? Probably not. But if one neighborhood of one religion gangs together to always harrass and threaten people of another religion? Maybe this resolution could help protect them.


"And how do I stop government officials from proselytising and violating the separation of church and state if they have a "right" to "manifest publicly" when that is seen as "interference" by "state"?"


I don't know if I understand this, especially "when that is seen as "interference" by "state".

But all proselytising is limited here by "no physical or psychological coercion", and a government official proselytising (or an employer or other authority) walks a fine line if they are proselytising.

Like a policeman saying "If you accept Jesus, or promise to read the Bible I'll let you go this time."?

That's over the line of coercion, of course.

And this is about the people, not the government. These are Human Rights, not government rights. The government doesn't have "Freedom of Religion."

The Prime Minister or the President or King does, but their personal right to believe or practice doesn't let them force their religion as the government.

If your government lied to you always, you wouldn't just say, "Oh, it has freedom of speech." Yes as individuals, they can say whatever, but as government officials they would probably end up in jail under other laws, even if they do have "freedom of speech".

People and Governments are different things.


I hope I understood your questions,
Al-Shahhadh


PS
Thank you, Newtonstein, Foreign Minister of the Atheist Empire for your support.
We believe this resolution will be good for all people.

And how do I stop government officials from proselytising and violating the separation of church and state if they have a "right" to "manifest publicly" when that is seen as "interference" by "state"?

This is a poor resolution.

You fail to make a distinction between government action and action by individuals employed by the government. All modern legal systems note the difference, so your argument crumbles.

Irony: A resolution encouraging religious freedom from a region named God.

We'll see. Now, let me look it over and see if I tear it to pieces.

(Etc.)

Well thank you for reading it! :)


I guess religion is a touchy subject, and some people don't like it at all.

That's OK. But if you think about it this resolution would protect you if your nation were taken over by a religious fanatic who wanted you to practice their religion!


I don't understand why everyone brings up human sacrifice, as if that is the definition of religious faith. There is some name for that kind of argument, but I don't remember it.

I would not even like animal sacrifice (and even in very free countries there are laws, like health and anti-cruelty, which regulate it) but millions of animals are slaughtered all the time, and it's OK because its just for burgers, not religion. (I'm sorry, that is off the subject.)

Murder is illegal almost everywhere, and in North America where I am, suicide is illegal in most places. I know this is NationStates, but that suggests how freedom and restriction are balanced in the real world.

This is not a Human Sacrifice proposal. And I'm sure the lawyers or judges can still make sure human sacrifice is still illegal in your country under this resolution.


Maybe the term is "red herring".
Or "extreme case".

Like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. That's not protected by your free speech, but it wasn't in the law - "The right of Free Speech does not include yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater". And not in a UN Resolution!


You know, in some countries maybe they won't even allow religious statues outside places of worship because that so much offends other people. Everything has to be worked out, case by case, in every place. Maybe in some countries they will even allow human sacrifice, under strict conditions (consenting adults, sound mind, waiting period, psychological examination), who knows. After all, they allow soldiers to go off to war, and sometimes the government even makes them go...


Al-Shahhadh

I agree, Representative, the "Human Sacrifice" issue is abused to a ridiculous degree in this discussion. By the way, the name for the logical fallacy is "straw man". A debater constructs a flawed caricature of your argument and attacks it, dismissing your actual proposal. DemonLordEnigma committed exactly this, and after one removes the "death cult" nonsense, he has very little to say.

Dismissing the intentional obfuscation by the opposition, this is perhaps the most sensible proposal I've seen this week.

I agree, Representative, the "Human Sacrifice" issue is abused to a ridiculous degree in this discussion. By the way, the name for the logical fallacy is "straw man". A debater constructs a flawed caricature of your argument and attacks it, dismissing your actual proposal. DemonLordEnigma committed exactly this, and after one removes the "death cult" nonsense, he has very little to say.

Dismissing the intentional obfuscation by the opposition, this is perhaps the most sensible proposal I've seen this week.

Thank you, Lagrange 4.

Al-Shahhadh

See here is the thing; this proposal does have a massive loophole that allows more extreme religious practices such as sacrifice, even with your note, which goes a long way but if the main tenant of the religion includes sacrifice... well then it doesn't help.

Try cutting 'so long as that regulation DOES NOT constitute, by intent or implementation, the SUBSTANTIAL DENIAL of any of the rights specified above.'.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

This proposal has the support of Assington and Atheist Empipre. Consider it endorsed.

Religious freedom is asking for "sectarian unrest"?


(OOC)

Every year the Orange Order want to march down the Galvachy Road (sp?) in Ireland. But they are Protestant, and the Galvachy Road is Catholic. So the police prevent the marching because it would lead to sectarian unrest - namely a huge barney between the Orange Order and the people who live on the Galvachy Road.

So the Orange Order have their religious freedoms curtailed because it would be a bad thing to do otherwise.

Under this resolution the police would not be able to stop them, and they would get the living crap kicked out of them for doing it. How is that a good thing?

That's OK. But if you think about it this resolution would protect you if your nation were taken over by a religious fanatic who wanted you to practice their religion!


Assuming the religious fanatic is a member of the UN of course :}

I am not quite able to support this proposal as it currently stands. Reference has been made to human sacrifice and other extreme acts that would compromise this potential legislation. While the examples cited are extreme, they do serve to highlight that certain laws that curb religious freedom are, for most nations, fundamental and intractable. The simplest way for this proposal to be amended to alleviate the fears previously expressed by secular and non-secular states would be to include caveats making it clear that national laws will not be abrogated in the name of religious freedom. However, one is led to wonder if such caveats would not completely neutralise the proposal on conception.

This is a thorny issue but, with sensitive and intelligent drafting, I believe we can craft worthwhile and beneficial legislation that enshrines in law a fundamental freedom. I urge the author to take another careful look at the proposal should the current submission fail.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

The Dictatorship of Hohoness wholeheartedly approves of this proposal.

The argument from the opposition concerning the allowance of human sacrifice is nonsense. The Universal Bill of Rights is referred to several times in the proposal as an overriding body of law, if necessary. It is quite clear that the Universal Bill of Rights does not provide for the religious killing of anyone.

The only way this faux scenario could happen is if YOUR national government wiped away its own human rights laws to make room for this resolution and then interpreted it in YOUR courts to allow for human sacrifice. And even then, your nation--if it held UN membership--would be in violation of interregional law.

This resolution is no way provides for that kind of extreme practice. The rights to live are protected by overriding laws in the UN and, I would hope, in your individual nations.

"Human sacrifice" is a weak argument that does not examine the proposal as a body of law. Do not "tear apart" a law and condemn it in context of two or three lines. Read the whole thing first. If you had done that, you would've realized that the Universal Bill of Rights provides additional protections.

Newtonstein
Foreign Minister
Atheist Empire

Well thank you for reading it! :)

You're welcome.

I guess religion is a touchy subject, and some people don't like it at all.

It is. That is part of why such an arguement has sprung up.

That's OK. But if you think about it this resolution would protect you if your nation were taken over by a religious fanatic who wanted you to practice their religion!

No more than any of the other three to four do. But this doesn't address the major concerns.

I don't understand why everyone brings up human sacrifice, as if that is the definition of religious faith. There is some name for that kind of argument, but I don't remember it.

Stop putting words in our mouths. Nowhere do you see people claim it is the definition of a religious practice.

The name for the argument is "legitimate."

I would not even like animal sacrifice (and even in very free countries there are laws, like health and anti-cruelty, which regulate it) but millions of animals are slaughtered all the time, and it's OK because its just for burgers, not religion. (I'm sorry, that is off the subject.)

Murder is illegal almost everywhere, and in North America where I am, suicide is illegal in most places. I know this is NationStates, but that suggests how freedom and restriction are balanced in the real world.

This is not a Human Sacrifice proposal. And I'm sure the lawyers or judges can still make sure human sacrifice is still illegal in your country under this resolution.

Actually, no, they can't. You specifically worded it so they can't. Let me quote my proof:

To “hold beliefs publicly” includes the right to public worship and other public manifestations of faith (such as dress, grooming, language and ritual practice).

NOTE: Nations and local governments retain their right to regulate, in their lawful jurisdictions, their fulfillment of this resolution for appropriate cause: public health and safety, budgetary constraints, community standards and traditions, etc., so long as that regulation DOES NOT constitute, by intent or implementation, the SUBSTANTIAL DENIAL of any of the rights specified above.

The Universal Bill of Rights doesn't really cover people's lives beyond asking for you not to torture them or be inhuman. All of the resolutions that deal with lives either rely on national laws, allow you to commit suicide, are talking about war, or allow you to kill. None of them provide anything that makes human sacrifice illegal, and this provides a legal case for it being forcibly allowed.

Maybe the term is "red herring".
Or "extreme case".

Like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. That's not protected by your free speech, but it wasn't in the law - "The right of Free Speech does not include yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater". And not in a UN Resolution!

Actually, according to the Universal Bill of Rights (I wish I thought about it before approving it back then), it is part of free speech unless national laws override it.

You know, in some countries maybe they won't even allow religious statues outside places of worship because that so much offends other people. Everything has to be worked out, case by case, in every place. Maybe in some countries they will even allow human sacrifice, under strict conditions (consenting adults, sound mind, waiting period, psychological examination), who knows. After all, they allow soldiers to go off to war, and sometimes the government even makes them go...

And this addresses the question of "psychological coercion" how? Also, see above about the human sacrifice thing.

I agree, Representative, the "Human Sacrifice" issue is abused to a ridiculous degree in this discussion. By the way, the name for the logical fallacy is "straw man". A debater constructs a flawed caricature of your argument and attacks it, dismissing your actual proposal. DemonLordEnigma committed exactly this, and after one removes the "death cult" nonsense, he has very little to say.

Dismissing the intentional obfuscation by the opposition, this is perhaps the most sensible proposal I've seen this week.

1) No evidence to back this presented. At least my arguement has evidence to back it.

2) Constructing a flawed caricature of my arguement and attacking it, dismissing the entirety of the arguement through obfuscation. Can we say "hypocrisy?"

When you are ready to come back with an arguement that actually proves something, let me know. Until then, you are dismissed.

The argument from the opposition concerning the allowance of human sacrifice is nonsense. The Universal Bill of Rights is referred to several times in the proposal as an overriding body of law, if necessary. It is quite clear that the Universal Bill of Rights does not provide for the religious killing of anyone.

1) It's referred to once as even a remote chance of such, quoted below:

The United Nations hereby recognizes the above cited elements as integral to “Religious Freedom” as referenced in Article 1 of The Universal Bill of Rights (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #26), and remind the body that all UN member states are firmly obliged to promote and enforce respect for these rights, as they are obliged to promote and enforce all those rights enumerated in The Universal Bill of Rights.

It states this is in addition to the Universal Bill of Rights, not overriden by it.

2) The Universal Bill of Rights doesn't provide one way or the other related to ritual killing as long as it is not torture, cruel, or inhuman. If you wish, I can demonstrate a humane human sacrifice.

The only way this faux scenario could happen is if YOUR national government wiped away its own human rights laws to make room for this resolution and then interpreted it in YOUR courts to allow for human sacrifice. And even then, your nation--if it held UN membership--would be in violation of interregional law.

Where's your proof of this? I have seen no resolutions that deal with human sacrifice, and as a human rights issue it has been pretty much shuffled to national laws. National laws happen to be overriden by this proposal with the following quote:

NOTE: Nations and local governments retain their right to regulate, in their lawful jurisdictions, their fulfillment of this resolution for appropriate cause: public health and safety, budgetary constraints, community standards and traditions, etc., so long as that regulation DOES NOT constitute, by intent or implementation, the SUBSTANTIAL DENIAL of any of the rights specified above.

Why? Human sacrifice is a ritual practice for religious purposes. Arresting people for it is a very "SUBSTANTIAL DENIAL" of "rights specified above."

This resolution is no way provides for that kind of extreme practice. The rights to live are protected by overriding laws in the UN and, I would hope, in your individual nations.

Actually, this specifically says it overrides national laws and the wording provides for it. The evidence:

To “hold beliefs publicly” includes the right to public worship and other public manifestations of faith (such as dress, grooming, language and ritual practice).

Human sacrifice is the most famous ritual practice for religious purposes in human history. There pretty much isn't a culture that doesn't know of it in some way or another. Few other things can claim such of an influence on the human psyche.

NOTE: Nations and local governments retain their right to regulate, in their lawful jurisdictions, their fulfillment of this resolution for appropriate cause: public health and safety, budgetary constraints, community standards and traditions, etc., so long as that regulation DOES NOT constitute, by intent or implementation, the SUBSTANTIAL DENIAL of any of the rights specified above.

See my comments about this above.

"Human sacrifice" is a weak argument that does not examine the proposal as a body of law. Do not "tear apart" a law and condemn it in context of two or three lines. Read the whole thing first. If you had done that, you would've realized that the Universal Bill of Rights provides additional protections.

1) The human sacrifice arguement assumes it is an article of law. You have no evidence to claim otherwise.

2) Try "seventeen lines." The proposal itself is only thirty-two lines long.

3) The Universal Bill of Rights does provide additional protections, but only one of them actually touches on this issue and it's not that hard to get around that one and still allow human sacrifice.

4) The human sacrifice arguement is not the only arguement presented, just the one people choose to focus on. Try one of the other arguements I made in my first post.

Sorry, this and most of the rest of this post is sort of silly.

Buddy, if you are going to call me "silly", you might want to actually address the points I made, instead of dismissing them -

As for the rest, it seems you're throwing up arguments for the sake of argument.

Your point was addressed by the guy with the Northern Ireland example. Although I did give the example of the mosque setting up loudspeakers, which you apparently dismissed, since it was so silly.

This proposal is about the freedom to practice your religion as it is practiced, within the limits of public safety, national law and the Universal Bill of Human Rights, etc.

Human sacrifice, police accosting children... this is not what it is about.
Give it some respect.


Really? Where does it say that there are limits? This proposal is about removing limits, limits which we feel are important to public order. We have no objections to religious freedom. We value civil and personal freedoms highly and recognise the right of personal conscience and religion.

But there have to be limits, or you have anarchy. It's hard to exercise your legally-guarenteed freedoms when the rule of law is non-exsistant. Which is why I approve of this particular RL law, because it nicely sums up the need to balance these considerations - "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Granted, I was using an extreme example. But human sacrifice was at one point a big part of religion. And from my interpretation, this resolution forbids restricting religious practices. So that particular practice would be okay, would it not?

Am I strawmanning? I don't think so. Please consult DLE's post above for a more in-depth dissection. If you still think I'm "silly", well, your loss.

ARMED LOVE is the UN delegate of the region where this proposal was drafted, and thus both an interested party and a firm supporter of the proposal.

The best replies to individual posts would be by the authoring nations or The People of Al-Shahhadh, the thread poster, but here’s our take:


This proposal takes the entire portion of the Universal Bill of Rights (NS UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #26 “The Universal Bill of Rights”) that deals with religion –

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

clarifies it, and makes it more concrete. That is what the writers intended, as I followed it.


When the resolution was proposed before there was much discussion about the “absolute” nature of core human rights, and the resolution was changed to make it clear when and how people’s “Religious Freedom” may be legitimately curtailed without violating the Universal Bill or this resolution. And ARMED LOVE thinks they managed that.

Does the resolution dangerously “extend” religious freedom?

In the US, if this were law (and it would only be treaty law) the only effect I can see is that it might make it more difficult for schools or employers to ban religious costumes or jewelry etc.

There maybe would be a higher hurdle for a principal or employer to pass before they could claim that these “practices” were seriously disruptive (of the learning environment, or safety, or productivity) and that any ban was not a “SUBSTANTIAL DENIAL” (that there were other balancing opportunities for religious practice or communication, etc).

But in places like Saudi Arabia or China, yes – this would have an impact. States which barred certain religions from public, institutional or even private life, would suffer being condemned as violators of the Universal Bill of Rights (as these nations are in real life, by certain nations at least).

That’s what this is for. The right to have churches, religious schools, freedom to practice publicly the things of your tradition, like beards or hats or clothes etc. And to raise your children as you see fit. And to be able to communicate your beliefs publicly.


The “NOTE” at the end –

NOTE: Nations and local governments retain their right to regulate, in their lawful jurisdictions, their fulfillment of this resolution for appropriate cause: public health and safety, budgetary constraints, community standards and traditions, etc., so long as that regulation DOES NOT constitute, by intent or implementation, the SUBSTANTIAL DENIAL of any of the rights specified above.

makes it clear that the edges of this freedom, like all freedoms, are locally negotiable.

It makes room for a nation’s outlawing of human sacrifice, and public demonstrations that seriously endanger the community, and church bells that are too loud, and overly obnoxious proselytizers, and 50 foot crosses in your front yard, etc.

And what about animal sacrifice (as Al-Shahhadh brings up)? Or what is “seriously endanger”? Or “too loud”? Or “overly obnoxious”? Or what about 5 foot crosses?

That’s for the nations’ legal systems to iron out – as always.

And ARMED LOVE believes that this proposal gives very good guidance to those determinations.
It was made with that in mind.

We ask all UN delegates to endorse this.

ARMED LOVE

ARMED LOVE is the UN delegate of the region where this proposal was drafted, and thus both an interested party and a firm supporter of the proposal.

Nope. Not a new record for calling in allies to try the "strength by numbers" game.

The best replies to individual posts would be by the authoring nations or The People of Al-Shahhadh, the thread poster, but here’s our take:

Should be fun. Let's see if you actually pay attention to the actual proposal.

This proposal takes the entire portion of the Universal Bill of Rights (NS UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #26 “The Universal Bill of Rights”) that deals with religion –

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

clarifies it, and makes it more concrete. That is what the writers intended, as I followed it.

Yes, and all they have to do is remove a simple part of phrasing and suddenly all of the arguements against this lose their strength. But as long as those wordings exist, this goes beyond what the Universal Bill of Rights did.

When the resolution was proposed before there was much discussion about the “absolute” nature of core human rights, and the resolution was changed to make it clear when and how people’s “Religious Freedom” may be legitimately curtailed without violating the Universal Bill or this resolution. And ARMED LOVE thinks they managed that.

And I think you should seriously go back and read it again. When you have this many of the respected regulars of this forum during this season telling you there's something wrong with it, there usually is.

Does the resolution dangerously “extend” religious freedom?

In the US, if this were law (and it would only be treaty law) the only effect I can see is that it might make it more difficult for schools or employers to ban religious costumes or jewelry etc.

There maybe would be a higher hurdle for a principal or employer to pass before they could claim that these “practices” were seriously disruptive (of the learning environment, or safety, or productivity) and that any ban was not a “SUBSTANTIAL DENIAL” (that there were other balancing opportunities for religious practice or communication, etc).

But in places like Saudi Arabia or China, yes – this would have an impact. States which barred certain religions from public, institutional or even private life, would suffer being condemned as violators of the Universal Bill of Rights (as these nations are in real life, by certain nations at least).

That’s what this is for. The right to have churches, religious schools, freedom to practice publicly the things of your tradition, like beards or hats or clothes etc. And to raise your children as you see fit. And to be able to communicate your beliefs publicly.

This is not a law for a single nation. Unless you use the example of the US forcing it over the States.

The “NOTE” at the end –

NOTE: Nations and local governments retain their right to regulate, in their lawful jurisdictions, their fulfillment of this resolution for appropriate cause: public health and safety, budgetary constraints, community standards and traditions, etc., so long as that regulation DOES NOT constitute, by intent or implementation, the SUBSTANTIAL DENIAL of any of the rights specified above.

makes it clear that the edges of this freedom, like all freedoms, are locally negotiable.

:Sigh:

What part of "denying someone the religious ritual practice of human sacrifice is a substantial denial of that religion's rights to practice rituals" do you not understand? I thought it was clear English.

The way that note is worded it overrides the laws of a nation whenever they apply to religion if the religion claims it as a religious practice. There's no way around that.

If you wanted to allow for your interpretation of it, just remove the note and let Clause 10 of the Universal Bill of Rights do the job.

It makes room for a nation’s outlawing of human sacrifice, and public demonstrations that seriously endanger the community, and church bells that are too loud, and overly obnoxious proselytizers, and 50 foot crosses in your front yard, etc.

No, it expressedly outlaws such attempts if the religion or church in question claims it as part of religious beliefs and/or practices.

And what about animal sacrifice (as Al-Shahhadh brings up)? Or what is “seriously endanger”? Or “too loud”? Or “overly obnoxious”? Or what about 5 foot crosses?

That’s for the nations’ legal systems to iron out – as always.

Not under this. Under this, it is only under the nation's laws to iron out if the religion doesn't claim it as a belief or practice. Or do I need to bring up the religions that have animal sacrifice and human sacrifice as inherent parts of them?

And ARMED LOVE believes that this proposal gives very good guidance to those determinations.
It was made with that in mind.

Yes. The guidance is "religion can do what it want and you can't do a damned thing." Very good guidance for why this shouldn't even be allowed to reach quorum.

...so long as that regulation DOES NOT constitute, by intent or implementation, the SUBSTANTIAL DENIAL of any of the rights specified above.

makes it clear that the edges of this freedom, like all freedoms, are locally negotiable.

Yes, but locally negoiable in what direction? With this resolution in place, the only possible direction is towards removing regulations, never the other way round, and not even keeping them as they are.

As I pointed out, with this put into international law, you would be able to sue the government to remove any religious restriction you might not like. In extremes, people would start to use "human sacrifice" as a defence in murder cases. More normally, you'd have people demanding Biblical creation be taught in schools, mosques suing municipal governments to exempt them from noise regulations, and other things like that which, especially in diverse nations like ours, can lead to serious friction between religious groups, and the first step to sectarian violence.

It makes room for a nation’s outlawing of human sacrifice, and public demonstrations that seriously endanger the community, and church bells that are too loud, and overly obnoxious proselytizers, and 50 foot crosses in your front yard, etc.

And what if someone is able to prove that laws restricting that are "substantial denials" of their religious rights? Anyone can claim that "my sect's doctrine is that you must put up a 10-meter high crucifix and convert unbelievers or you go to hell."

But in places like Saudi Arabia or China, yes – this would have an impact. States which barred certain religions from public, institutional or even private life, would suffer being condemned as violators of the Universal Bill of Rights (as these nations are in real life, by certain nations at least).

That’s what this is for. The right to have churches, religious schools, freedom to practice publicly the things of your tradition, like beards or hats or clothes etc. And to raise your children as you see fit. And to be able to communicate your beliefs publicly.

The fact is that the UBR already provides protection for the freedom of religion, so there already is UN-protected and mandated religious freedom. You are already guarenteed the right to practice your religion, or lack thereof. But this is taking it too far. If that is what you want to do, then you either need to seriously rewrite the proposal or just take what the UBR already gives, because what you want is what you, and we, already have.

One country one religion! You all know what happens in a nation with many religions eg. N. Ireland.

One country one religion! You all know what happens in a nation with many religions eg. N. Ireland.

Uh, North Ireland only really has two. You're thinking of the US, which has more churches and religions than used to exist in the entirety of human history (starting a new religion is almost as big a business as movie making in California).

I just used N. Ireland as an eg.
In the U.S. you have people of all kinds of religion (most not normal) Jahova, Mormon, and all that but Christianity is your state religion - one religion

I just used N. Ireland as an eg.
In the U.S. you have the "crazy" people Jahova, Mormon, and all that but Christianity is your state religion - one religion

Uh, Christianity is not endorsed by the state. It's not supposed to. A few people of the government endorse it, but the government itself doesn't.

And keep in mind the US also has multiple forms of Satanism, Neo-Pagans, Eastern Religions, Islam, etc.

Oh, Jahova is a name for the Christian God and Mormons are a type of Christianity.

I know Jahova is related to Christianity but it was a book a 17 year old kid made in the 19th century - thats crazy. I know that the American nation has alot of religion I just named two. And the U.S. is a christin nation- it's not jewish, islam, hindu etc. "IN GOD WE TRUST"

I know Jahova is related to Christianity but it was a book a 17 year old kid made in the 19th century - thats crazy. I know that the American nation has alot of religion I just named two. And the U.S. is a christin nation- it's not jewish, islam, hindu etc. "IN GOD WE TRUST"

Jews believe in the Judeo-Christian God but give him a different name. Same with the Muslims. And the name "Jahova" was in use long before the 19th century. The Hindus have a variety of gods and can pick one for the phrase.

Before you start calling people crazy, remember Christ claimed to be the son of God at one point and some of the writers of the NT claimed to hear voices. By today's standards, they would all be locked up in insane asylums.

While the US has a large portion of Christianity, remember that Islam and Wicca are two of the fastest-growing religions and one of them may someday replace Christianity as the top dog in the US.

You might want to back off on this issue. Arguing for a single religion gets one's views derided and ignored and you are the minority here. Stick with the battles you can win.

The mormon bible was made in the 19th century by a teenager THATS CRAZY not the people READ.
I have the freedom to say what I want.
I do not think that Christianity will be a lesser religion in the U.S. no way not with the "jihad allah wackos" killing Americans.
And their is no battle.

The mormon bible was made in the 19th century by a teenager THATS CRAZY not the people GET IT-READ and something tells me that you are part of minority group in real life.

See my previous post about the concept of insanity.

As for minority group: Yeah. I'm one of the few who doesn't rely entirely on personal viewpoints when posting on here.

I have the freedom to say what I want so get a grip.

My advice is based on experience and trying to save you trouble. Religion-based arguements are not given much respect around here.

I do not think that Christianity will be a lesser religion in the U.S. no way not with the "jihad allah wackos" killing Americans.

You know, people once said Evolution would not be taught in schools due to it contradicting the idea of Creation. People once believed we'd never be allies with Japan or what is now Russia due to them either killing Americans or opposing the US. People once believed man would never achieve flight. People once believed a second world war would destroy the Earth. And people once thought the Catholic Church would never split and have multiple branches form from it.

Times change. Just because it is that way in the here/now doesn't mean it will be forever. You have to ask yourself what is going to happen when this latest bout of throwing lives way ends. Then, we'll probably be all buddy-buddy with the same people who are killing us now. Hell, we were once before.

And their is no battle and if their was I would stand my ground and you or anyone can't overrun me- sure you might outnumber me but you won't win- you dream.

We win by proving our arguements and convincing others, lose by not proving our arguements and failing to convince others. I'm just pointing out that certain methods are not accepted as proving.

We've side-tracked this topic. Let's move back to the main issue after your reply.

Ok you seem to be very openminded.
Listen, first I would like to appolagize to you but it irretates me when people dissmiss other peoples opinions because it is an oppinion of a minority. I think that all nations must have a state religion and in my country it is Christianity (Catholic).
I do however think that it is allright that other nations have a different state religion based upon their majority religion.
I do not think that it is ok for other religions to invade a country, immigrants must adjust to the state, culture and religion.

Listen, first I would like to appolagize to you but it irretates me when people dissmiss other peoples opinions because it is an oppinion of a minority. I think that all nations must have a state religion and in my country it is Christianity (Catholic).
Hypocrite.

You just referred to the beliefs of some people as crazy. How dare you demand that the opinions of minorities should be respected after saying disrespecting them yourself.

Now, as for your claims that there should be one main religion in a country and immigrants should adjust to that, why? If you believe in your religion so strongly you shouldn't be afraid that people will convert to another one.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Jesus tap-dancing Christ! "all nations must have a state religion"? We'll stick with secularism, thanks.

OKAY I'm going to be as calm as possible about this.
READ the post!
Yes I think that nations should have a state religion.
Yes I think that immigrants should respect the countrys religion, culture, language and laws.
No I do not think that immigrants should convert to the state religion nor register to the state church.
I NEVER said that the relgion was crazy but I did say that I think that the fact that people made a real religion out of a "bible" that a teenager wrote in the 19th century is crazy NOT the religion!
You are probably american (and no that is not bad) and you have grown up in a multi cultural and mult religios country Germanians, anglo saxons, celts, african american, latino etc. ... - christian groups, jews, hindu, muslim etc. and do not see the importance of holding ones identedy.
Deamon Lord Enigma said that I (North Island) WAS a MINORATY in this debate(this resolution) my oppinion is not that of the majoraty this remark has NOTHING ot do with religion.
So how dare you, you are the hypocrite.

Ecopoeia
Many countrys have state religions in te real world.
It does not mean you have to be part of the religion.

Ecopoeia
Many countrys have state religions in te real world.
It does not mean you have to be part of the religion.
as I know almost all the Democracies (except Israel), has divid the state and the religion.
maybe the most of them is christians, but since the state act in the principals of DEMOCRACY and not in the principals of christainism, they aren't has state religion.

Look I did not say nor will I say that all state religions should be christian not at all. You can create a religion if you want and make human sacrfises if you wish I dont care.

OKAY I'm going to be as calm as possible about this.
READ the post!
Yes I think that nations should have a state religion.
Yes I think that immigrants should respect the countrys religion, culture, language and laws.
No I do not think that immigrants should convert to the state religion nor register to the state church.
Your right. You never said that, I thought you where implying it.

I NEVER said that the relgion was crazy but I did say that I think that the fact that people made a real religion out of a "bible" that a teenager wrote in the 19th century is crazy NOT the religion![quote]
Ahh but you are mocking a central tenant of their religion. That ain't very respectful.

[quote]You are probably american (and no that is not bad)
OOC: No I'm not American. Why on earth would I think that is bad? Was it supposed to be one of those 'No offence but...' kind of statements?

and you have grown up in a multi cultural and mult religios country Germanians, anglo saxons, celts, african american, latino etc. ... - christian groups, jews, hindu, muslim etc. and do not see the importance of holding ones identedy.
My dear I'm a bisexual, female, childfree, hedgewitch. Not many people share my identity but that doesn't mean I don't have one. If your identity is strong enough why should you care if people are different or the same as you. As the (translation of) The Qu'ran says

2.256: There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error /OOC

Deamon Lord Enigma said that I (North Island) WAS a MINORATY in this debate(this resolution) my oppinion is not that of the majoraty this remark has NOTHING ot do with religion
Democracy. Minority of opinion generally looses.

So how dare you, you are the hypocrite.
Quite possibly, but why in this sense?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I just gave you egs. of countries that had no state religion.
the only states who claim for state religion are radical religious like the islam in Iran (and I very not proud that Israel is in that list).
there is no state religion in the western world, but maybe the thread could be more useful if you define "staet religion".

Democracy. Minority of opinion generally looses.
Minority opinion doesnt had to loose in democracy. they had right to say their thought. if their opinion "loose" this is "dictatorship of majority".
but that is no importance, and he has no reason to claim his opinion here.

Minority opinion doesnt had to loose in democracy. they had right to say their thought. if their opinion "loose" this is "dictatorship of majority".
but that is no importance, and he has no reason to claim his opinion here.
Of course he can say what he wants (if it fits with the TOS) but if no one else votes with him...

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

People! The topic! This conversation was pretty much over on the previous page.

Getting back to the thread topic:

As one of the writers of the Religious Freedom Proposal, let me see if I can put to rest the ‘human sacrifice problem’.

The Proposal ends with a note, which says,

“Nations and local governments retain their right to regulate, in their lawful jurisdictions, their fulfillment of this resolution for appropriate cause: public health and safety, budgetary constraints, community standards and traditions, etc., so long as that regulation DOES NOT constitute, by intent or implementation, the SUBSTANTIAL DENIAL of any of the rights specified above.”

This clearly states that local governments FIRST retain their rights to make laws that regulate these freedoms -- with the exception of substantial denial.

Therefore a local government is procedurally enabled to outlaw human sacrifice.

True, someone could plead that human sacrifice is the fundamental core of their religion (as they could also plead public nudity or the refusal to use automobiles or electricity is at the core of their religion), and that denying their right to human sacrifice is therefore a “substantial denial” of their religious freedom.

But they would have to have a ruling, within YOUR nation’s legal system, to support them. Are your courts going to accept human sacrifice? Are they going to validate a religion that insists all it members be allowed to be nude in public or demand an absolute religious right to walk on their hands at all times?

The fact that individual national courts retain their sovereign right to regulate (and to determine the meaning and weight of SUBSTANTIAL DENIAL) is the final protection against absurdity.

Law is not a computer program. It does not run mindlessly. The execution of law is a human activity and this Proposal clearly leaves the final call to local jurisdictions; this Proposal respects national sovereignty and local community standards and traditions. It makes very clear its intent (as good law should do) but it povides, by functionally depending on local and national courts, for reasoned, prudential judgments to be made -- as good law should do.

And this is a UN Resolution developing the Universal Bill of Rights. There is no World Religious Freedom Court in this proposal, there are no sanctions. This is a statement of ideals to be realized by nations as best they can.

(Aside: a nation out of our region wanted sanctions added. I argued no. The Universal Bill of Rights has no sanctions. This Proposal, like the Universal Bill of Rights, like the right of Freedom of Speech, for instance, is a clarification of principles, not case law for each nation. Each nation is only obliged to do their best with it.)


I hope this clears some of this up.

Some of this has been previously discussed when the earlier draft was proposed, at:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=372990&page=1&pp=15


Please consider the actual function of a UN resolution in your national life. This Proposal makes clear the primacy of local law, yet points just as clearly to ideals of freedom.

But like all attempts at realizing ideals, it ultimately relies on the wisdom (and common sense!) of the local authorities. So it is with all law, and all rights.


The Dominion of Reason and Compassion

Getting back to the thread topic:

As one of the writers of the Religious Freedom Proposal, let me see if I can put to rest the ‘human sacrifice problem’.

Good luck.

The Proposal ends with a note, which says,

“Nations and local governments retain their right to regulate, in their lawful jurisdictions, their fulfillment of this resolution for appropriate cause: public health and safety, budgetary constraints, community standards and traditions, etc., so long as that regulation DOES NOT constitute, by intent or implementation, the SUBSTANTIAL DENIAL of any of the rights specified above.”

This clearly states that local governments FIRST retain their rights to make laws that regulate these freedoms -- with the exception of substantial denial.

Therefore a local government is procedurally enabled to outlaw human sacrifice.

True, someone could plead that human sacrifice is the fundamental core of their religion (as they could also plead public nudity or the refusal to use automobiles or electricity is at the core of their religion), and that denying their right to human sacrifice is therefore a “substantial denial” of their religious freedom.

But they would have to have a ruling, within YOUR nation’s legal system, to support them. Are your courts going to accept human sacrifice? Are they going to validate a religion that insists all it members be allowed to be nude in public or demand an absolute religious right to walk on their hands at all times?

So, wait, now governments are in the business of what people can and cannot believe and what is valid beliefs under this?

Proposal offers nothing not already in place and basically tells governments they may regulate religions as they wish. Illegal due to contradicting previous resolutions.

The fact that individual national courts retain their sovereign right to regulate (and to determine the meaning and weight of SUBSTANTIAL DENIAL) is the final protection against absurdity.

The majority of the people in my nation define religious belief as absurdity. By your interpretation, I can make religion illegal by going with that definition. Suddenly, we can stomp all over religions again and do what we want in the area of it.

Excuse me while I redefine "executing everyone who holds a religious belief" as a "nonsubstantial denial" of their rights.

Law is not a computer program. It does not run mindlessly. The execution of law is a human activity and this Proposal clearly leaves the final call to local jurisdictions; this Proposal respects national sovereignty and local community standards and traditions. It makes very clear its intent (as good law should do) but it povides, by functionally depending on local and national courts, for reasoned, prudential judgments to be made -- as good law should do.

It can still do that without the note. Hell, replace it with a note referring back to Clause 10 of the Universal Bill of Rights. As written, it undermines the UBR by either overruling the ability of governments to rule or by allowing them to do what they want by simply defining a term. Either way, it fails in its job.

And this is a UN Resolution developing the Universal Bill of Rights. There is no World Religious Freedom Court in this proposal, there are no sanctions. This is a statement of ideals to be realized by nations as best they can.

It is also not needed. At all. The UBR is pretty clear as it is.

(Aside: a nation out of our region wanted sanctions added. I argued no. The Universal Bill of Rights has no sanctions. This Proposal, like the Universal Bill of Rights, like the right of Freedom of Speech, for instance, is a clarification of principles, not case law for each nation. Each nation is only obliged to do their best with it.)

Sanctions were not added to the UBR due to the fact the UN resolutions give you no choice about obeying them if the wording allows none. The UBR wording allows none.

I hope this clears some of this up.

Yep. It adds another dimension to our arguement and puts the final nail in the casket of this proposal. :D

Some of this has been previously discussed when the earlier draft was proposed, at:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=372990&page=1&pp=15

Not important, but good to know.

Please consider the actual function of a UN resolution in your national life. This Proposal makes clear the primacy of local law, yet points just as clearly to ideals of freedom.

All it makes clear is how easy this is to abuse. I'm going to have fun with this one.

But like all attempts at realizing ideals, it ultimately relies on the wisdom (and common sense!) of the local authorities. So it is with all law, and all rights.

Common sense is what we were arguing. But now, I can see how easy it is to use this proposal to completely undermine the work of several resolutions. Part of common sense is looking at how it can be abused and asking yourself if you are willing to live with it.

Dear DemonLordEnigma, I can see why you have so many posts in the Forum.


You take every sentence and make little comments, always finding something to say.

Maybe that is a fun thing to do, and it feels good, but it makes long posts and they are a little sniping (I think that is the word) and hard to read and follow. And maybe hard for a real discussion?

It would be easier for all other people if maybe you could state your opinion in a simple way like some nations do. I know you do not like the proposal and think it is bad, but first it was because the proposal allowed terrible religious things, like human sacrifices, and now you are saying that it allows you to make any religious things against the law.

I wonder if no matter what you will always find something wrong.

The proposal states more fully than the Human Rights Bill what some of the things are that are part of religious freedom.
And it says that these things should be respected as rights.
And then it states that if there is good reason, your government can regulate in this area, but that “regulate” is not the same thing as completely outlawing or denying. Like all the Universal Human Rights, religious freedom should be honored as much as possible, including the things listed in the proposal.

Look at those rights

The United Nations shall endorse what will be called the Universal Bill of Rights, the articles of which are as follows:

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.
Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.
Article 3 -- All human beings have the right to peacefully assemble.
Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.
Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.
Article 6 -- No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses.
Article 7 -- Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.
Article 8 -- A human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative.
Article 9 -- Any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law.
Article 10 -- The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members. If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected. If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights.

The governments of nations make laws about all of them, but if they make regulations so strong to SUBSTANTIALLY DENY a right, they are considered to violate it.

Our proposal is just adding that there is more to religious freedom than “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 it lists some of those things.

Thank you,
Al-Shahhadh

Dear DemonLordEnigma, I can see why you have so many posts in the Forum.


You take every sentence and make little comments, always finding something to say.

I post in five forums most of the time, sometimes as many as seven. My high postcount isn't just because of this forum.

Also, if you notice, I tend to combine replies to multiple posts into one post if I am going to reply to more than one at a time. So, really, I could have higher if I wanted.

Maybe that is a fun thing to do, and it feels good, but it makes long posts and they are a little sniping (I think that is the word) and hard to read and follow. And maybe hard for a real discussion?

This method evolved from doing internet discussions. It's intended for real discussions that are long, drawn out, and consider every point you are saying. Check some of the past threads that have reached hundreds of posts. You'll find I'm not alone.

It would be easier for all other people if maybe you could state your opinion in a simple way like some nations do. I know you do not like the proposal and think it is bad, but first it was because the proposal allowed terrible religious things, like human sacrifices, and now you are saying that it allows you to make any religious things against the law.

I'm just going by interpretations and pointing out the flaws. No proposal is perfect, just that some have more flaws than others.

I wonder if no matter what you will always find something wrong.

Not always. If you check past threads, sometimes I've just agreed with it and argued on the side of the resolution. Mostly I argue against due to most of them needing some improvement in some area.

The proposal states more fully than the Human Rights Bill what some of the things are that are part of religious freedom.

Things not really needed and open to plenty of abuse due to wording of one measely thing you can easily remove and have it do the same exact thing it does now.

And it says that these things should be respected as rights.
And then it states that if there is good reason, your government can regulate in this area, but that “regulate” is not the same thing as completely outlawing or denying. Like all the Universal Human Rights, religious freedom should be honored as much as possible, including the things listed in the proposal.

Define "good reason." Define "substantial denial." Define "regulate," as regulation on something can include outlawing it. The problem here is there are nations who will pull exactly what I demonstrated in my last post if given the justification there and use it to trample over the rights of their citizens to worship freely. The majority will likely come to the first interpretation given in this thread for arguing against it and find their governments trampled over by criminals. It's a case of the reality of what it is most likely to do does not match what it sets out to do.

No matter how you look at it, that note needs to be removed. You can do that and rely entirely upon the UBR for your results without as strong of an arguement.

Look at those rights

The United Nations shall endorse what will be called the Universal Bill of Rights, the articles of which are as follows:

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.
Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.
Article 3 -- All human beings have the right to peacefully assemble.
Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.
Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.
Article 6 -- No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses.
Article 7 -- Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.
Article 8 -- A human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative.
Article 9 -- Any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law.
Article 10 -- The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members. If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected. If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights.

And this proposal is intended as an expansion of the first right that can, under interpretations, either overrule national government or allow it to do as it pleases. That does not go in the spirit of that resolution.

The governments of nations make laws about all of them, but if they make regulations so strong to SUBSTANTIALLY DENY a right, they are considered to violate it.

Define "SUBSTANTIALLY DENY" as the definition is given in your proposal. As it stands, I can interpret it to either give my nation's government no power over criminals or absolute power over how they believe.

Our proposal is just adding that there is more to religious freedom than “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 it lists some of those things.

You can still do that without the note at the end. I've provided why multiple times.

Dear DemonLordEnigma, I can see why you have so many posts in the Forum.


You take every sentence and make little comments, always finding something to say.

That's the way they are, evidently, Al-Shahhadh.

DemonLordEnigma, if you considered Al-Shahhadh's complete post, and not merely responded to it piecemeal, you would have seen that they were making the point that what you say is true of all the rights enumerated in the NationStates Bill of Rights, and that the "note" they have appended to their proposal describes the standard practices of nations in their legislation concerning basic rights.

To me the worst that can be said of this proposal is that it is unnecessary, and that all these rights are already implied in Article 1 of the NS Bill of Rights.

But maybe not. And so I can understand nations interested in protecting religion making certain aspects of "religious freedom" more explicit. That is all the "Religious Freedom" proposal does. Otherwise the the limits and caveats are standard legal practice. I would endorse this proposal if I had the power to do so.

The Democratic States of Inherent Amelioration
Proud member of the region Freedom

As much as I hate to say things like this, DEL is using a method of responding that has been in use since before I joined. That was over a year ago.

Now you keep taking our claims and saying we are wrong. You bring up the note we bring up it's loophole

this proposal does have a massive loophole that allows more extreme religious practices such as sacrifice, even with your note, which goes a long way but if the main tenant of the religion includes sacrifice... well then it doesn't help.

Then you bring up the UBR but

The Universal Bill of Rights doesn't really cover people's lives beyond asking for you not to torture them or be inhuman. All of the resolutions that deal with lives either rely on national laws, allow you to commit suicide, are talking about war, or allow you to kill. None of them provide anything that makes human sacrifice illegal, and this provides a legal case for it being forcibly allowed.

If you address these concerns in the text of your proposal I will, most likely, give you the full support and cooperation of The Black New World.

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

That's the way they are, evidently, Al-Shahhadh.

This system was in place when I first joined under my first nation (which has been restored today). To get an idea of how long I have been here, the first UN resolution I voted on was the one banning biological weapons.

DemonLordEnigma, if you considered Al-Shahhadh's complete post, and not merely responded to it piecemeal, you would have seen that they were making the point that what you say is true of all the rights enumerated in the NationStates Bill of Rights, and that the "note" they have appended to their proposal describes the standard practices of nations in their legislation concerning basic rights.

I read each post completely through once and then reply. That's part of how I determine what responses will be used.

The note added is unneccessary when you actually read the last part of the UBR. All you have to do is drop the note and you end up with the same thing as before. And this is comming from someone who has over a year of experience in trying to twist UN resolutions to self-advantage.

To me the worst that can be said of this proposal is that it is unnecessary, and that all these rights are already implied in Article 1 of the NS Bill of Rights.

No, the worst that can be said without using foul language is to call it a worthless piece of turkey crap so bad in construction it can't even make good toilet paper and is not even worthy of the attempt. But we are here to try to improve it or get it removed from consideration, neither of which involve just mere insults.

The worst that can be said about it when taking it into consideration has already been said.

Now, ask yourself this: Why are some of the more prolific posters on this forum, people who have been here the longest, saying something is wrong if nothing is wrong? The answer is that something is wrong.

I have used this method several times as well, to respond to discussion that were, themselves, segmented for whatever purpose--better understanding, topic division, logic argument, etc.

The proposal itself was written this way. Therefore, I can see how you might respond in the segmented and torn-asunder method. However, as with most laws, the proposal cross-references itself several times and even cross-references other laws. So going piece-by-piece is a very narrow method of arguing this proposal. You are only focusing on one statement and opining on it before looking outward for more information.

Many official laws in RL (see the PATRIOT ACT) would've done this very well, if any Congresspersons had actually had time to study the damn thing. In fact, the PATRIOT ACT was FULL of sections that referenced previous laws. You almost HAD to have an entire library of U.S. Code at your fingertips to understand any of it.

The "Religious Freedom" proposal is decidely easier to interpret and define. But it still needs a broader vision of study.

In addition, if this proposal were any more specific or defined, it would come across as a strike against national sovereignty. When the UN defines and specifies conditions of a law, it becomes repressive. The "Religious Freedom" proposal avoids this by leaving many things to be interpreted by the state. I endorse this proposal for that exact reason. The UN should be somewhat vague in the laws it adopts, otherwise sovereignty is at risk.

Now, ask yourself this: Why are some of the more prolific posters on this forum, people who have been here the longest, saying something is wrong if nothing is wrong? The answer is that something is wrong.

Interesting, without an ounce of logic.

1. We've been here longer.
2. We say something is wrong.
3. Therefore, something is wrong.

Non sequiter in its purest form. Phony statements like this only hurt your credibility. Your argument, up until this very last point, although full of bile and spit, was at least somewhat intelligent.

This one statement made you look desperate. I can presume you're smarter than that.

Is this resolution going to infringe on the right of my government to make religious minorities fight gladiators and lions in front of large audiences?

the substitution of hemp for yeast has already thrown a monkeywrench into our bread production, and now we're going to have to give up circuses too?

our government may not survive this. we'll probably need to install cable tv in poor neighborhoods to keep the populace from revolting.

The proposal itself was written this way. Therefore, I can see how you might respond in the segmented and torn-asunder method. However, as with most laws, the proposal cross-references itself several times and even cross-references other laws. So going piece-by-piece is a very narrow method of arguing this proposal. You are only focusing on one statement and opining on it before looking outward for more information.

And, in certain cases, I simply said to see a previous comment. Or refered to another arguement I have made in the topic when the needed reply is the same. The proposal is not the only thing that cross-references.

Many official laws in RL (see the PATRIOT ACT) would've done this very well, if any Congresspersons had actually had time to study the damn thing. In fact, the PATRIOT ACT was FULL of sections that referenced previous laws. You almost HAD to have an entire library of U.S. Code at your fingertips to understand any of it.

The "Religious Freedom" proposal is decidely easier to interpret and define. But it still needs a broader vision of study.

We've established this already. Try a new arguement.

In addition, if this proposal were any more specific or defined, it would come across as a strike against national sovereignty.

:Adds another name to the list of people who did not read the FAQs:

The UN's job is to override national sovereignity. It's not an arguement given much respect on here.

When the UN defines and specifies conditions of a law, it becomes repressive. The "Religious Freedom" proposal avoids this by leaving many things to be interpreted by the state. I endorse this proposal for that exact reason. The UN should be somewhat vague in the laws it adopts, otherwise sovereignty is at risk.

You haven't read the passed resolutions either. In many cases the UN tramples all over national sovereignity. That's part of what it is allowed to do.

Interesting, without an ounce of logic.

1. We've been here longer.
2. We say something is wrong.
3. Therefore, something is wrong.

Non sequiter in its purest form. Phony statements like this only hurt your credibility. Your argument, up until this very last point, although full of bile and spit, was at least somewhat intelligent.

This one statement made you look desperate. I can presume you're smarter than that.

By all appearances, the opposition isn't bothering to listen. If this were more than a handful of people, I'd simply throw in the occasional comment about reading the topic, in most cases restate my arguement, and move on. But since this is appearing to be from people who know each other, I hold it as no excuse. So arguements having to be repeated and pointed out in this case warrants a different response than the norm.

So far, no real arguement against the challenges has been brought up that has not lead to further problems for the proposal. The one case I saw that might be good only openned the door for an arguement going to the other extreme and which ends up damaging the proposal anyway. We have a rather large number of challenges to this that involve valid interpretations which have not been fully dealt with, and which can only be dealt with by altering the proposal itself. And all it requires is a simple note being removed that is unneccessary.

Now, why did I state that part you quoted? Rather than actually considering any arguements brought up by people who oppose this, what I have seen is half-hearted attempts to discredit them and a few cases where rather than deal with the arguement, those supporting this have used attacks not backed up by any form of evidence or even decided to target a poster in a fruitless hope of getting a poster out of the way. As it stands, I see no reason this is worthy of consideration and am awaiting an actual arguement that doesn't involve me basically repeating myself which also deals with the challenges brought up in a way that doesn't open up more doors for attack.

And all it requires is a simple note being removed that is unneccessary.

Weren't you in pursuit of the removal of the entire proposition? Why now the narrower goal?

And I wasn't attacking you. I pointed out a classic logical fallacy that you fell into and the suggestion that, judging by the caliber of your posts, you shouldn't have had to resort to such measures.

As far as I can tell, the only person trying to discredit you is you. The opposition has simply refuted your arguments.

Weren't you in pursuit of the removal of the entire proposition? Why now the narrower goal?

I still am and have not disguised such. But to remove the key to a lot of the arguements presented, you have to remove a single section. Without it, those arguements are weakened tremendously. With it, the side going for the proposal has a problem with valid interpretations they are simply refusing to listen to.

And I wasn't attacking you. I pointed out a classic logical fallacy that you fell into and the suggestion that, judging by the caliber of your posts, you shouldn't have had to resort to such measures.

And I shouldn't have had to repeat myself to the same people so often.

As far as I can tell, the only person trying to discredit you is you. The opposition has simply refuted your arguments.

Refuted? How? They have not proven their case. The alternate interpretation has been demonstrated on here to leave as much room for abuse as the primary one people responded with. And already several of the challenges are not even being acknowledged.

Now, while I enjoyed the diversion and your attempt to turn this around on me, I find it best to be over. Unless you have something to add in support or opposition of the resolution that has not already been addressed, do me a favor and don't bother replying. Because as it stands, you're attacking the poster, not the arguements, and have yet to support your case.

"Religious Freedom"
Category: Human Rights (Significant)


Recognizing Article 1 of The Universal Bill of Rights (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #26),

which states, in full,

“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.”

We, The United Nations of NationStates hereby affirm “Religious Freedom” as that specific human and civil right referred to in Article 1, and do further clarify “Religious Freedom” as:

The right of all people to hold to and manifest publicly or privately, any beliefs regarding ultimate questions of human, physical or spiritual nature without substantial interference, or fear of substantial interference, by any party, state or non-state.

Further, we affirm:

To “hold beliefs” includes the rights to hold no belief, including beliefs contrary local practice and tradition.

To “hold beliefs” includes the right to publicly (or privately) change beliefs and the practices which follow from them.

To “hold beliefs publicly” includes the right to public worship and other public manifestations of faith (such as dress, grooming, language and ritual practice).

To “hold beliefs publicly” includes the right of parents and legitimate guardians to publicly and/or communally (or privately and domestically) educate and instruct those for whom they are responsible within any system of belief, so long as no undo physical or psychological coercion is employed therein.

To hold beliefs “publicly” includes the right to publicly (or privately) proselytize or promote one’s beliefs, so long as no physical or psychological coercion is employed therein.

The United Nations hereby recognizes the above cited elements as integral to “Religious Freedom” as referenced in Article 1 of The Universal Bill of Rights (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #26), and remind the body that all UN member states are firmly obliged to promote and enforce respect for these rights, as they are obliged to promote and enforce all those rights enumerated in The Universal Bill of Rights.


NOTE: Nations and local governments retain their right to regulate, in their lawful jurisdictions, their fulfillment of this resolution for appropriate cause: public health and safety, budgetary constraints, community standards and traditions, etc., so long as that regulation DOES NOT constitute, by intent or implementation, the SUBSTANTIAL DENIAL of any of the rights specified above.

The Dominion of Necros-Vacuia understands the restrictions placed on the State with regards to regulation of religious activities; however, we wish to bring up a question regarding the reverse.

The Sephirothic Church of our nation has on numerous times sought governmental aid in dealing with cases of heresy/anathemic activity on the part of our citizenry; it has been our practice to allow the Internal Security Agency license to support their requests. This practice is by no means limited to the Church; the elders of our nation's Islamic population have sought similar recourse, and have had it.

We do not carry out punishment per se, but we do assist in the apprehension of said citizens and their delivery before a religious council; from there, the matter transfers out of the State's hands and into a religious matter.

What the High Apostolic Council views as heresy/anathema, we do not; however, we support their freedom to hold this view through our security forces.

We are uncertain if this resolution would affect such a practice; could this be elaborated upon?

--Ellion Kev, Ambassador to the UN, Dominion of Necros-Vacuia
"Death is not an excuse to cease serving us, worm."

The proposal did not reach quorum.

But thank you to everyone who thought about it and posted here.

Peace,
Al-Shahhadh

Just replace that last portion with one refering back to Clause 10 of the UBR and submit again. It takes a few tries sometimes.