NationStates Jolt Archive

Proposal Name: Missionary Immunity
Proposed By: The Free Land of Sylvanshire

I. Objective: Missionaries will be given the same immunity diplomats are given.

II. Practical Objectives
A. Decrease social injustice.
B. Increase social welfare.
C. Increase religion and spirituality.

III. Justification
A. The UN recognizes that missionaries are a religion’s diplomats.
B. The UN recognizes that missionaries are usually humanitarian in nature, increasing social welfare where they work.
C. The UN recognizes that missionaries are captured, tormented, killed, and are in other ways abused when working in radical religious nations.

IV. Qualification
A. Missionaries must submit a registration to the UN Missionary Committee.
B. Missionaries must have a humanitarian objective.
C. Missionaries are allowed, but not required to have, a religious objective.
D. Missionaries are allowed, but not required, to be members of a religious organization.
E. Missionaries may not distribute arms.
F. Missionaries may not provide combat training.
G. Missionaries may not profit financially from the people of the nation they work in.

V. Implementation
A. The UN creates a UN Missionary Committee to arbitrate disputes.
1. The committee consists of one member per UN delegate nation.
2. The committee reviews and files registrations.
3. The committee investigates complaints by missionaries against nations.
4. The committee investigates complaints by nations against missionaries.
B. Missionaries may only claim Missionary Immunity if they are registered with the UN Missionary Committee.
C. Nations finding in their borders, registered, but otherwise unqualified missionaries, must continue to give missionaries immunity until the UN Missionary Committee confirms the missionaries are unqualified.
D. Missionaries who are registered, but are otherwise found to be unqualified by the UN Missionary Committee, must return to their home nation within 30 days of notification.
E. Nations that are found by the UN Missionary Committee to be violating the immunity of missionaries will be ordered to cease violations immediately.
F. Nations are responsible to enforce missionary immunity within their nation.

VI. Enforcement
A. Unqualified missionaries who refuse to return to their home nation within 30 days of notification will be forcibly returned by UN peacekeeping forces.
B. Nations that fail to cease violations against missionaries or fail to enforce missionary immunity within their nation will be treated in the same manor as nations that fail to cease violations against diplomats’ immunity.
C. UN peacekeeping forces will perform search and rescue operations in nations where missionaries are being held captive.


“Well it’s about time,” exclaims missionary alliance president John Miller. “It’s amazing to me how long we’ve allowed nations to torture people whose only real offense was offering humanitarian aid to inhumane nations.”

“This is an outrage,” yells Dictator John Smith of Holy Smith’s Dictatorship. “We have enough trouble already with these religious spies trying to subvert our rich, perfect, all-Smith-worshiping culture. What’s next? A resolution demanding international freedom of religion?”

Firstly, you have failed to categorize this proposal. So it ain't even worth starting to talk about until you do that.

Is there even a resolution about Diplomatic Immunity?
Actually, if I get two endorsements I might propose it (OoC I have diplomatic immunity in RL)

Thanks Adamsgrad.

category: Social Justice
strength: mild

Well, okay then. I still don't get why you have put those quotes at the end, as if a discussion is taking place between two individuals. That cannot be included with a UN resolution.

that was just for fun here, and will not be submitted.

Well other than that, I can't see too much wrong with it.

Except for this line, that needs clarifying:

1. The committee consists of one member per UN delegate nation.

The point being, I don't actually have a clue what you mean here.

The conditions you set, making religion optional, actually makes this more about charity workers than missionaries - which for me is an improvement, since I don't think that religions deserve special rights over other ideas and organisations. But we already have prior legislation concerning those who offer disaster aid:

Good Samaritan Laws


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


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description The NationStates United Nations,

RECALLING its resolution, the IRCO, adopted Sep. 1, 2003, which established the voluntary funded International Red Cross Organization (IRCO) for United Nations members in order to be “the first response team to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and any other events which threaten the lives of citizens”;

OBSERVING that in addition to medical and law enforcement personnel, that these first response teams include technical and engineering professionals who in many non-emergency situations may be highly regulated by domestic liability laws;

CONCERNED that international disaster assistance programs like the IRCO as well as volunteer disaster assistance teams sent by other nations are limited in their effectiveness to quickly respond to disasters and emergency situations due to the lack of pre-existing disaster assistance arrangements, such as arrangements concerning the liabilities associated with volunteer response and recovery teams carrying out emergency aid;

1. AFFIRMS the right of nations responding to offers of disaster assistance to decide which offers to accept and which offers to refuse;

2. PROCLAIMS that nations responding to offers of disaster assistance also have the right to refuse assistance from specific individuals and / or types of aid;

3. CALLS UPON all nations to develop domestic “Good Samaritan” laws granting volunteer based first responder teams, including technical and engineering professionals, some immunity to civil liability associated with work and professional judgments made while rendering disaster assistance provided that they do not act with reckless or intentional disregard of known dangers; and

4. DECLARES that the immunity to liability associated with rendering aid applies only to work associated in disaster or emergency assistance, and that all other normal domestic laws should apply to these individuals.

Votes For: 10,303

Votes Against: 3,990

Implemented: Fri Oct 8 2004

If you're going to give special rights to aid workers, your legislation should probably build on this.

Finally and most importantly, you don't specify what this immunity actually constitutes (as far as I know, we don't have any universal agreements on diplomatic immunity to build on).

Missionaries are currently not allowed to proselytize in Krioval. This is following a thirty-year theocracy imposed on the Kriovalian population due to their activity. So as long as they'd be allowed to preach publicly, Krioval reserves the right to arrest or deport them for breaking the law.

I am currently drafting a proposal on Diplomatic Immunity. When finished, I'll post a draft.

Well then Krioval I guess if this resolution is sent & passed in the U.N. it is something you will have to conform to, hands down. If you feel it threatens your theocracy, then you have the option of leaving the U.N. You can voice your opinion by voting against and persuade others to do the same. Thats about as much as you can do.

Missionaries not only have a religious backround but also provide essential items for the needy. Surely no one has a grudge on Mother Teresa? The same must apply. And if you reserve the right to arrest these people trying to speak pubically, you should be denied access into the U.N. as it is.

Fass refuses to recognize religions legally other than giving people the right to worship whatever they want, and thus does not support giving missionaries any special rights.

The resolution on aid workers is enough. Missionaries will not be treated any differently, and most certainly not like foreign dignitaries.

If this resolution is sent and accepted, you can vote no. The power of democracy and opinion flows freely in Nation States. How great it is =)

First of all, there is no NSUN resolution on diplomatic immunity - that would need to come first. I tried to get one through some time ago, with little success.

Should diplomatic immunity be as strong as it is in the real world, missionaries would (among other things) pay no taxes, and the country in question would be obliged to provide them with transport, homes, offices and so on. Further, since the qualifications for being a missionary in your document are left effectively unspecified, just about anybody could apply for missionary status - whether they were from another country or not.

Quite apart from the other concerns, the final clause needs to be removed. The NSUN has no peacekeeping forces or military authority.
EDIT: Well shut my mouth. Apparantly it has now. Blimey.

Well then Krioval I guess if this resolution is sent & passed in the U.N. it is something you will have to conform to, hands down. If you feel it threatens your theocracy, then you have the option of leaving the U.N. You can voice your opinion by voting against and persuade others to do the same. Thats about as much as you can do.

Missionaries not only have a religious backround but also provide essential items for the needy. Surely no one has a grudge on Mother Teresa? The same must apply. And if you reserve the right to arrest these people trying to speak pubically, you should be denied access into the U.N. as it is.

First of all, Krioval will oppose it ever seeing quorum. Should it receive quorum, Krioval will oppose it again on the forums here. Should it pass, Krioval will attempt to repeal it. And like foreign dignitaries, should a missionary be found engaging in "acts contrary to their purpose as emissaries", they can still be booted out of the country. If the nation sponsoring the missionaries is particularly aggressive in their conversion attempts, Krioval can declare war, which effectively moots the issue of diplomatic immunity, doesn't it?

Aid workers in Krioval may have whatever faith they choose. They are still constrained to Kriovalian law while in my land, and if certain types of aid workers are miffed that they can't use a disaster as a catalyst to gain new religious followers, too bad. There are plenty of nations that will assist us who don't require we listen to sermons.

~ Raijin Dekker, Commander of Krioval

For those who are interested, I've drafted a Proposal for Diplomatic Immunity

Ah, missionaries. They've been coming to Enn for the past 200 years. Haven't managed to do much in all that time, most of them instead being converted to our atheistic ambivalence. We view most missionaries as somewhat amusing.

I hope our attitude will still be allowed under this?

I more worried that, if this proposal goes through, the Cobdenian sport of Missionary Hunting (traditional done by chasing missonaries across the crocket lawn on newtback and hitting them with pointed sticks; hunters wear the very traditional uniform of cloth cap, morning coat, army boots, string vest and loin cloth) will be banned...

Ah, missionaries. They've been coming to Enn for the past 200 years. Haven't managed to do much in all that time, most of them instead being converted to our atheistic ambivalence. We view most missionaries as somewhat amusing.

I hope our attitude will still be allowed under this?

Yes, the resolution won't change your attitude. The point of the proposal, which will be more evident in the final draft, is to protect missionaries from bodily harm and imprisonment. I didn't mean for missionaries to get all the benefits diplomats get, just the protection and international incident benefits. I will have to clarify that.

By the way, I didn't post this here to get people's opinions on the issue. I posted it here to get people's constructive critisism on how well it is or isn't written. What else needs to be clarified? What is missing?

New Shiron views missionaries of any sort as simply private citizens under the law. Missionaries who are foreigners are free to operate under the usual student, tourist or work visas that are appropriate as New Shiron has no laws concerning religion, other than laws forbidding acts involving violence or harm to another, or acts that would be viewed as criminal in any circumstance.

Providing special status therefore seems unnecessary to New Shiron. For those missionaries who are willing to visit lands where their presence is unwanted, than New Shiron feels that a person of faith should believe that the protection of the divine power they represent should be enough. If not, than perhaps as early Christians found, martyrdom leads to the kingdom of heaven.

New Shiron will continue to act against anyone, no matter their religious beliefs, who seeks to bring harm, violence or simply wishes to defraude the innocent or ill informed.

New Shiron will vote no on this resolution and urge others to do the same.

Sincerely,
Lord Harrington, Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of New Shiron

ooc
in other words, my puppet will vote against it for the exact same reasons as above

By the way, I didn't post this here to get people's opinions on the issue. I posted it here to get people's constructive critisism on how well it is or isn't written. What else needs to be clarified? What is missing?
I would leave submitting this proposal off until Diplomatic immunity is passed (assuming it is). I written a draft (as I've mentioned already), if you wish to propose it feel free (I only have one endorsement at the moment, so I cannot)

well, i'd like for you to get the credit for your proposal if possible. let's see if you can get another endorsement by the time your proposal is finalized (final draft ready).

Yes, the resolution won't change your attitude. The point of the proposal, which will be more evident in the final draft, is to protect missionaries from bodily harm and imprisonment. I didn't mean for missionaries to get all the benefits diplomats get, just the protection and international incident benefits. I will have to clarify that.

By the way, I didn't post this here to get people's opinions on the issue. I posted it here to get people's constructive critisism on how well it is or isn't written. What else needs to be clarified? What is missing?
Missionaries are a blot on humanity and should be wiped out.

YGSM doesn't support this proposal in any way and will not help with constructive criticism.

Should you submit it, YGSM will launch every nuclear missile in our arsenal against your nationstate.
Should it be approved for UN-wide voting, YGSM will campaign against it.
Should it pass, YGSM will immediately propose a repeal.

Ok, Sylvanshire, we're going to send a hoarde of Violetists to your nation. Human sacrifice being their norm, they will be taking oodles of people off your streets and sacrificing them on your streets.

Under your proposal, you can't do anything about them but complain to their home nation and request deportation. In the meantime, tens of thousands of your citizens are being killed off.

Or we could send you some Greenmaybry Satanists. Last time they were here, they attempted to smuggle in a nuclear warhead - a cobalt "dirty bomb" if you're interested. As they would have diplomatic immunity, you can't search their luggage, and they'll be happy to explode said bomb in your capital at rush hour.

Rethink it. Alot.

Missionaries are a blot on humanity and should be wiped out.

YGSM doesn't support this proposal in any way and will not help with constructive criticism.

Should you submit it, YGSM will launch every nuclear missile in our arsenal against your nationstate.
Should it be approved for UN-wide voting, YGSM will campaign against it.
Should it pass, YGSM will immediately propose a repeal.

YGSM, do you ever learn? What you have just said amounts to flaming, and I am suprised you have not attracted the attention of the moderators.

The threat of nuclear attack is really quite unecessary.

The final resolution should have a clause that specifies failure of protection if they participate in any violent acts or attempt to stir violent acts.

Deportation should also be done by local authorities as would any other form of deportation.

Additionally, I move that rather than give them "diplomatic immunity" they be given the protections of foreign aid workers. Immunity as pointed out is dangerous.

Protections should include...

- no interogations

- healthy detainment

- unless participating in a violent crime protection against violence

- violation of international law to harm a missionary if they are working peacefully rather than attempting political uprising (political uprising should be spelled out...in China they consider Christianity as a threat to their party hence why Christians are oppressed)

- quick and speedy deportation to a) their home country or b) a UN country (So they too are bound by this resolution) that is welcoming of deported missionaries...which option will be chosen by the deporting goverment as most beneficial and convient to themselves.

- Additionally allow nations to economically fine said missionaries but not to a degree that would allow nations established law concerning debt or fines to in some way harm or further detain a missionary.



As to the whole nuclear weapon deal...IC...fire one missile at a member of our region and we'll infect your entire populous with a biological weapon so terrible it will leave your closest allies bombing you with every nuclear weapon they have solely in hopes of irradicating the disease...That'll be all.

It would appear that my counterpart from Daletha has forgotten momentarily that possession of biological weapons is forbidden to United Nations members. Naturally, I assume that said weapons do not exist and that my esteemed colleague has simply spent a bit too much time exposed to harsh sunlight recently. Oh, and religion in Krioval is pretty much restricted to temples or places of worship, not to say that a missionary couldn't come to Krioval, but said missionary might have a time of navigating through some of our larger cities.

Lord Jevo Telovar
United Nations Ambassador
Armed Republic of Krioval

Darn it...it was suppose to sign me in under a different nation...that message was from The Supreme Holy Empire of Matthew Chase...which is not a UN member.

Daletha is of course a peaceful, Christian nation with only a nuclear armament as a deterrent to attacks...geh...I'm embaressed now. :eek:

And really that was meant out of sarcasm...the whole flinging nukes over UN proposals is weak and tasteless and...heh...against international law.

---TRANSMISSION TO BORDER GUARDS---
Stop picking off the missionaries, nobody's noticed yet! We'd better quit while we're ahead.

:D
(I'm hoping you can tell I was kidding...)

Giving missionaries free reign like this is a very dangerous thing. How would the person who drafted this proposal like it if Olwe sent wiccan missionaries to their nation? :D Yeah, I didn't think so. :rolleyes:

Currently, the law in Olwe states that attempting to convert someone to a religion constitutes discrimination (a crime punishable by exile). There is absolutely NO way I'm going to support this proposal.

Additionally, I move that rather than give them "diplomatic immunity" they be given the protections of foreign aid workers. Immunity as pointed out is dangerous.

The implications of this are actually quite offensive. Aid workers come to help rectify the problems of people plagued by things like extreme poverty, disease, or natural disaster. Giving missionaries similar status implies that being irreligious, or following the "wrong" religion, is something comparable to those things.

Cobdenia thinks this proposal is, frankly, irrelevent for two reasons:
1) It relies on the draft of the Diplomatic Immunity being submitted (which it will, pending further ammendments), reaching quorum and being voting upon (we hope that we have the support of everyone here on this issue ;) )
2) If the above does happen (which it hopefully will), I'd draw your attention to Section II, paragraph 3)
Diplomatic status may be bestowed upon any individual at the host nation’s discretion, provided the individual is not a resident of the nation in question, without the necessity to present credentials (including, but is not limited too, spouses and dependents of Diplomatic and Consular Officers, Heads of Government on official visits, Heads of States on official visits, aid workers and missionaries)

Rear-Admiral The Honourable Leslie Featherstonehaigh-Michelwhaite CMG DSO
HM Deputy Governor-General to the Dominion of Cobdenia

While we won't be using language as harsh as some of the other respondents to this concept, Frisbeeteria and her colonies are completely opposed to granting special rights to religious workers. If this ever passes, you may expect to see identical legislation in place granting immunities and protections to trade attaches and other commercial representatives. After all, missionairies only offer to improve your lot in the next life. Our salemen can improve this world for you.

By the way, this isn't Social Justice. When you try to restrict the rights of one group while granting rights to another, it's Moral Decency. Social Justice may sound like it would work, but it's all about the money. This resolution isn't about money at all.

The implications of this are actually quite offensive. Aid workers come to help rectify the problems of people plagued by things like extreme poverty, disease, or natural disaster. Giving missionaries similar status implies that being irreligious, or following the "wrong" religion, is something comparable to those things.


Offensive? I am not attempting to put them into the same class. I'm trying to state that they receive the same protections...and I don't know where you have been but the majority of Christian missionaries ACTUALLY DO PROVIDE ESSENTIAL LIFE-SAVING AID TO THE PEOPLE THEY ARE MINISTERING TO.

Offering aid is a key to nearly almost every missionary organization and often missionaries provide aid to people that their goverment and the rest of the world has abandoned. To say that missionaries simply shove beliefs down people's throat is preposterous and unfounded in reality.

Furthermore, the majority of true Christian missionaries provide much needed emotional support to people who are suffering. They provide true hope that the goverments who abandoned them tried to take away. Additionally, true Christian missionaries do not attempt to destablize goverments but actually tell people that they are obligated by God to adhere to the authorities HE established.

True Christians are a threat to no one and I think it is about high time people stop blaming and judging TRUE Christians for the actions of people who claim to be Christians but are actually FAR FAR FAR from what God intended.

Offensive? I am not attempting to put them into the same class. I'm trying to state that they receive the same protections...and I don't know where you have been but the majority of Christian missionaries ACTUALLY DO PROVIDE ESSENTIAL LIFE-SAVING AID TO THE PEOPLE THEY ARE MINISTERING TO.
-snip rant-
Err, where did Christianity in specific come in, exactly? This proposal is providing protections for all religious missionaries. Of course, if you were simply moving to a more specific area of discussion for some reason I missed, then my apologies.

Well, Krioval doesn't have missionaries, despite the state religion. Of course, we have aid workers, who are culturally sensitive enough to keep their mouths shut on one's purported fate in the afterlife and instead focus on improving people's lives here and now.

YGSM, do you ever learn? What you have just said amounts to flaming, and I am suprised you have not attracted the attention of the moderators.

The threat of nuclear attack is really quite unecessary.
OOC: How was that flaming? It was in-character strongly opposing the proposal and threatening in-character war.

I called missionaries a blot on humanity. I didn't call the proposer a blot on humanity.

OOC: How was that flaming? It was in-character strongly opposing the proposal and threatening in-character war.
It might have something to do with this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8209899&postcount=13), where I mentioned to your previous nation that it was "a ridiculously disproportionate response to the comments here. It's dangerously close to flamebaiting. Cut it out."

Just an informed guess.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

(OOC: OK, I'll come in again)


The Grand Duchy of Asshelmetta strongly opposes this proposal.

Missionary "work" is a cover for cultural imperialism and the genocidal destruction of less-fortunate societies.

We would be far more likely to support a complete ban on proseltyzing.

Foreign missionaries in our tropical paradise can expect a quick expulsion if they're lucky.

If this proposal is submitted, we will consider it a casus belli.
Expect that our strong resistance to this proposal will include, but not be limited to, vigorously campaining against its adoption.
Should the resolution pass, we will begin an immediate repeal effort.

The delegate from Sylvanshire, and all government officials from Sylvanshire, are hereby declared persona non gratis in the Grand Duchy of YGSM and throughout The Isle of Lesbos.

HAH! you must be Kidding
We have enough problems with the religious nuts we have already with out letting in and allowing to roam freely more missionary types!

NGOs with non religious backgrounds accepted! Holy joes Denied!

There is no reason why Missionaries should have diplomatic immunity. Period. If they go into another nation to convert people, they should have to follow that nations laws just like everyone else. There's plenty of laws protecting from religious persecution, so we don't have to worry about missionaries in particular.

The example of The Joker keeps running into my head, of course. I seem to recall he went off to a foreign country and earned diplomatic immunity which he used to great effect to create chaos and escape the law. If a deranged psychopath claims a religious cause for his actions, why should he be immune from national laws? Why should he have any power over government? Granted, missionaries are as a whole rather sweet fellows, but there will be lots of isolated incidents if you give them immunity. You should know from your own issues that there are religions who demand human sacrifices and would probably be willing to perform them given immunity.

Your resolution A) Creates problems and B) Doesn't fix problems. There's no reason for it to exist, and its existence would be dangerous to other nations. I'd call that inherently flawed, and advise you scrap it and focus on something new.

I'm afraid that Ecopoeia will not be supporting a resolution that provides extra protections to religious representatives that are not granted to charities, aid workers, etc. Please do not be discouraged, this proposal nonetheless indicates that your nation has much to offer the UN.

Kind regards
Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

OOC: How was that flaming? It was in-character strongly opposing the proposal and threatening in-character war.

I called missionaries a blot on humanity. I didn't call the proposer a blot on humanity.

You need to take your finger of the nuclear button, in my opnion. Such an approach to diplomacy will only lead to destruction and ruin.

I agree. I'll be the first to admit I'm a bit of a hothead sometimes, but nukes are just the wrong way to go. I mean, I don't know how things are usually done in YGSM, but come on -- you're going to punish (probably) innocent civilians over a disagreement with a national leader? Have him assassinated like everyone else. :rolleyes:

Hell, even better than that, why don't you challenge him to a duel? Much better than all this cowardly and dishonorable nonsense. Whatever happened to fighting like real men?

Allemamde believes this proposal to represent an unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of the Membership.

Allemande has a long history of religious freedom and tolerance. Allemande even produces a fair number of missionaries who might benefit from this proposal. But the proposal is based on false assumptions regarding the mission and character of the NSUN.

Our Constitution (IOW, that of the United States of Allemande), embraces the notion of separated and articulated powers. Every governmental entity in Allemande has a jurisdiction; some are physical, but almost all are logical as well. Logical jurisdiction means that a governmental unit in Allemande has limits on the type of authority it can wield, and not just on the boundaries within which it can wield that authority.

To offer an example, the licensing of professionals - physicians, attorneys, and engineers, to name a few - is a state matter. The maintenance of an interstate transportation system and of laws pertaining to interstate commerce is a federal matter.

We see the NSUN as fitting within this framework. It does not exist to review and supercede the decisions of the nations that comprise its membership; rather, it exists to regulate and harmonize relations between governments.

Thus, it is proper for the NSUN to issue rules pertaining to international trade, disaster relief, the Internet, matters of war and peace, and the like. It is not proper for the NSUN to regulate internal matters, where core of the dispute is not international in nature.

This proposal fails that test.

The proponents can not explain why the current international system needs to permit evangelism across international boundaries. To be sure, states that endorse a particular faith or believe in religious freedom may find the existence of an atheistic state - or one committed to a different religion - extremely offensive. But this is simply the price we pay for the principle of national sovereignty, which gives each nation the right to regulate its own internal affairs as it sees fit.

This resolution - and others like it - would trample on international sovereignty and turn the Membership into provinces of a World Government. Allemande and other nations that belief in well-constituted governments can not support such an effort.

Diplomatic immunity is a different matter, and Allemande will give that proposal due consideration. But there is not reason why the NSUN should get itself into the business of regulating religion.

We do not like the idea of any sort of diplomatic or missionary 'immunity.' The word, itself, smacks of being above the law. Should some missionary or diplomat double-park in front of one of our Tastefully Tacky (TM) Outlet Villages, we would have no recourse to punish (i.e., fine) them as we would any citizen or tourist who did the same?

Furthermore, would a nation that forbids the use of 'recreational drugs' be forced to accept and grant immunity to missionaries whose religions actively promote the use of hallucinogens "to become closer to God'? What about nations that forbid polygamy, nudity, or snake abuse? Or religions that actively promote violence against those outside of their religion??

I vote No, no, no, no no!!

Offensive? I am not attempting to put them into the same class. I'm trying to state that they receive the same protections...and I don't know where you have been but the majority of Christian missionaries ACTUALLY DO PROVIDE ESSENTIAL LIFE-SAVING AID TO THE PEOPLE THEY ARE MINISTERING TO.

Offering aid is a key to nearly almost every missionary organization and often missionaries provide aid to people that their goverment and the rest of the world has abandoned. To say that missionaries simply shove beliefs down people's throat is preposterous and unfounded in reality.

Furthermore, the majority of true Christian missionaries provide much needed emotional support to people who are suffering. They provide true hope that the goverments who abandoned them tried to take away. Additionally, true Christian missionaries do not attempt to destablize goverments but actually tell people that they are obligated by God to adhere to the authorities HE established.

True Christians are a threat to no one and I think it is about high time people stop blaming and judging TRUE Christians for the actions of people who claim to be Christians but are actually FAR FAR FAR from what God intended.

Then give them rights as aid workers, not missionaries, and open it up to non-religious aid as well. Quite simple really.

Plus, what on Earth does this have to do with Christianity in particular? Our most pressing concerns were in fact with missionaries of religions with more violent or abusive tendencies. Although, as a fairly secular society which places great emphasis on individuals reaching their own theological/philosophical views without being subject to preaching or indoctrination (although our freedom of expression laws do protect preachers), _Myopia_ tends to prefer aid which isn't tied to any religious doctrine.

We do not like the idea of any sort of diplomatic or missionary 'immunity.' The word, itself, smacks of being above the law. Should some missionary or diplomat double-park in front of one of our Tastefully Tacky (TM) Outlet Villages, we would have no recourse to punish (i.e., fine) them as we would any citizen or tourist who did the same?

Furthermore, would a nation that forbids the use of 'recreational drugs' be forced to accept and grant immunity to missionaries whose religions actively promote the use of hallucinogens "to become closer to God'? What about nations that forbid polygamy, nudity, or snake abuse? Or religions that actively promote violence against those outside of their religion??

I vote No, no, no, no no!!
Well, since we're all diplomats here, I'm confident a majority will support diplomatic immunity.

Well, since we're all diplomats here, I'm confident a majority will support diplomatic immunity.

I wouldn't support diplomatic immunity precisely because we're all diplomats here. You threaten to nuke a few diplomats every now and then for their idiocy in an international gathering, remember?

I wouldn't support diplomatic immunity precisely because we're all diplomats here. You threaten to nuke a few diplomats every now and then for their idiocy in an international gathering, remember?

Point of information:

YGSM, and (word that shall not be said)helmetta frequently threatened the nations in question with nuclear annihilation; he said nothing about the UN diplomats themselves.

I agree. I'll be the first to admit I'm a bit of a hothead sometimes, but nukes are just the wrong way to go. I mean, I don't know how things are usually done in YGSM, but come on -- you're going to punish (probably) innocent civilians over a disagreement with a national leader? Have him assassinated like everyone else. :rolleyes:

Hell, even better than that, why don't you challenge him to a duel? Much better than all this cowardly and dishonorable nonsense. Whatever happened to fighting like real men?
I tried that early on and the mods thought I was threatening the player, not the delegate, and deleted my nation.

Nukes are just far more appropriate.

You need to take your finger of the nuclear button, in my opnion. Such an approach to diplomacy will only lead to destruction and ruin.
You say that like it's a bad thing.

Hmmm... This has been most interesting. We actually posted this draft on behalf of Sphyrras. They said it would be interesting. It sure is.

Looks like our cover was blown. Well, we have all we need anyway. I must say the experiment went...rather well...

Next you're going to say it was a sociology experiment?
Been there; done that.

Try it and I might be forced to nuke you.

This, not to be harsh, just an opinion, is an outrage! If a country doesn't want missionaries in their coutries, the missionaries know that, so they should stay out. Once the come in, the country should be able to do whatever they want, seeing as how it is their country, and the missionaries could promote chaos in a stable social and religious status. I might even say it should be illegal to allow missionaries in, ban them. lol
LovAmore

This, not to be harsh, just an opinion, is an outrage! If a country doesn't want missionaries in their coutries, the missionaries know that, so they should stay out. Once the come in, the country should be able to do whatever they want, seeing as how it is their country, and the missionaries could promote chaos in a stable social and religious status. I might even say it should be illegal to allow missionaries in, ban them. lol
LovAmore
If you want to nuke him, I'd be happy to lend you some missiles.

My missionaries would be armed.

LOL Thanks for the offer, but we tend to be a peaceful nation. It is a suggestion that I have made into a proposal

It is entitled Ban Missionaries i am about to change to attitude of it to significant

Although the people of Saint Jeanvrin understand that the nation of Sylvanshire is submitting this proposal to receive feedback on the quality of the proposal's writing, we believe that it is our right criticize its content.

The people of Saint Jeanvrin believe that their most treasured right is freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. With that said, missionaries are welcomed in our land, but are rarely taken seriously. We believe that missionaries are workers in the private sector, unless working for a Theocratic government, and should therefore not be extended the right of Diplomatic Immunity.

The world is not a theocracy, and therefore should not have to abide by theocratic rules unless they can be proven to have secular benefits. This bill has no secular benifits. It simply holds non-religious nations hostage to the beliefs of Theocratic nations.

In short, Diplomatic immunity should be for government representatives only, not for people wishing to 'sell' their religious dogma to the people of my nation.

Respectfully,



King Octave IV
Saint Jeanvrin

The People's Dominion of Snoogit (referred to as The PDS) share the viewpoint taken by the nation of Saint Jeanvrin, and expand upon it.

The PDS recognizes the value of religion in a society, but we do not, and never will support it as a soverign entity. THus is a Missionary were to approach us on our land, and begin interfereing with national security, even with our relaxed views on free speech, this is one area the PDS has taken a solid stance on. We cannot and will not allow a religous organization special privileges afforded by the state.

Religion cannot interfere with the social fabric of The PDS, and therefore is not held in any higher esteem then a non-profit business. If at anytime it is found that a religous sanctuary has been acting in any way to harm the government, we see no reason to not detain that person and place criminal charges upon them.

The DemonLordEnigma Empire opposes this on the accounts that DLE is an atheistic nation, by the choice of the majority of the citizens, and it cannot guarantee the safety of anyone stupid enough to try converting people to other religions. The people of DLE tend to get violent around those trying to teach religion anymore, having had a misunderstanding with the failed attempt at introducing Christianity to the nation (we frown on cannibalism, despite the high number of vampires in the nation). The government, being ran by an android, also tends to discourage religion and, though it won't kill you, cannot be depended on to provide armed guards for missionary safety, all the while requiring foreigners to be disarmed (otherwise, they are executed for espionage).

The above is not a case representative of all nations.

Are you telling me that atheists don't want protection for their missionaries?

Not that I know of.

Are you telling me that atheists don't want protection for their missionaries?
We recommend they wear condoms, yes.

Why not just make a proposal that encourages religious wars between nations and be done with it? That's what this "missionary immunity" will effectively do.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Well, destruction and ruin is a bad thing, is it not?

Well, destruction and ruin is a bad thing, is it not?
We believe the delegate from YGSM was using some form of humour.

We believe the delegate from YGSM was using some form of humour.
Well, we believe the delegate from YGSM is a drunken anarchist who glories in destruction.

OOC: has anyoned ever gotten DEAT'd for flaming themself?

Well, we believe the delegate from YGSM is a drunken anarchist who glories in destruction.

OOC: has anyoned ever gotten DEAT'd for flaming themself?

OOC: I dunno. You trying to set a precedent?

Either this thread needs to get back on topic or be allowed to die.


We recommend they wear condoms, yes.Yes, this means you too, Frisbeeteria. Consider this an unofficial warning for spamming.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Hey, no fair!
You're stealing my precedent!

I didn't even get a chance to complain about myself in the Moderation forum yet.