NationStates Jolt Archive

We have suffered from Religious Persecution for far too long. Please read my proposal for Religious Freedom in the UN. This proposal is not imposing at all, and simply gives us the ability to practice our different faiths without discrimination. Please read and support my Proposal.

People generally appreciate it if you post a copy in the forums.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Arselvania

Description: Resolved: All Persons in UN Countries will have freedom to participate in religous activites as far as it does not impose or limit another person's ability and freedom to do the same. This does not imply that religious words, actions, or principles are barred from National proceedings or locations. This simply allows for persons to practice their religon without interfearence from the State. Any Nations found inhibiting their citizens religous freedom will be subject to fines, penalties, and punishment upto an including dismissal from the UN. No State shall impose their religion on another state, or interfear with the ability of the people of that state to practice their religion.

Thank you, this is my first proposal. Any feedback would be much appreciated.

Well, I have two problems with this proposal.

1. It's illegal.
2. It's already been done legally, with the Universal Bill of Rights, as I recall.

Well, I have two problems with this proposal.

1. It's illegal.
2. It's already been done legally, with the Universal Bill of Rights, as I recall.
Expanding on the illegal-ness of the proposal - you cannot dictate what types of governments will or will not exist within UN member nations. This proposal would eliminate all theocracies (governments based on one religion) and is therefore illegal.

Nice try - I've drafted similar things myself, but it's just not feasible. :(

Expanding on the illegal-ness of the proposal - you cannot dictate what types of governments will or will not exist within UN member nations. This proposal would eliminate all theocracies (governments based on one religion) and is therefore illegal.

Nice try - I've drafted similar things myself, but it's just not feasible. :(

Not true, a Theocracy is a government in which the ruling body is the church. This does not mean neccesarily that the citizens could not practice another religion. It would just mean that the Government makes its decisions based on the religion of it's choice, but cannot force the citizens to participate in a particular religion. That is why I included the clause that this does not exclude religious words, deeds, etc in government proceedings or locations.

You'll have to change the punishment. The rules allow for kicking Nations out of the UN. On the other hand, they do have to kick themselves out in order to not obey a proposal... so maybe it is legal to word it that way, even tho it happens in a different way.

In addition to Theocracies, you'd also kick out hieracracies. What's a hieracracy? Think a theocracy, then add even more religious law.

This is absolutely intolerable. Religion is not a matter of personal choice, it is a matter of fact. All beings in our realm are the chattels of Lord Atum, the One True God. On this matter there can be no dispute. Thy will on this matter cannot change this for it is simply a fact, scientifically observable and verifiable. If ejection from the UN is the cost of this underlying principle of our State and of our Government, then we would welcome ejection from such a corpulent and loathsome body as this one would have proven itself to be!

- Lord Jehvah, Representative of Lord Atum in the United Nations.

This is absolutely intolerable. Religion is not a matter of personal choice, it is a matter of fact. All beings in our realm are the chattels of Lord Atum, the One True God. On this matter there can be no dispute. Thy will on this matter cannot change this for it is simply a fact, scientifically observable and verifiable. If ejection from the UN is the cost of this underlying principle of our State and of our Government, then we would welcome ejection from such a corpulent and loathsome body as this one would have proven itself to be!

- Lord Jehvah, Representative of Lord Atum in the United Nations.

You can still form your government around the principles of your religion, you simply cannot force your citizens to follow/practice/believe that religion. For example, I could say that my laws are directly based on 10 commandments minus the ones that directly refer to whom you are to worship, but I can't force my citizens to believe or practice the tenants of Judaism or Christianity.

We most certainly do, and I assure you we have no intention of changing that. The idea that this body exists to legislate religion is abhorrent and repellant in the extreme.

- Lord Jehvah.

We most certainly do, and I assure you we have no intention of changing that. The idea that this body exists to legislate religion is abhorrent and repellant in the extreme.

- Lord Jehvah.

Your own goverment legislates religion, so therefore you believe that your own government is abhorrent and repellant. If I thought my governmnet was abhorrent and repellant i would hire an assassin to kill myself :sniper: .

Your statement is contradictory in nature and exposes you as the incoherant ruler that you obviously are. Your country may force a person to PRACTICE certian actions associated with your religion, however your citizens would be FOOLS to believe in a religion that did not care about the state of their heart or belief.

We most certainly do, and I assure you we have no intention of changing that. The idea that this body exists to legislate religion is abhorrent and repellant in the extreme.

- Lord Jehvah.

That is the purpose of the United Nations here. If the thought that your theocracy could be threatened, an entertaining possibility in and of itself if your leader claims to be a God, you are free to abstain from membership in the United Nations. Feel free to campaign against any issues you dislike, of course, but please at least don't complain about the mechanisms by which the institution runs - membership is voluntary.

Lord Jevo Telovar
United Nations Ambassador
Armed Republic of Krioval

I can't remember - is there a seperation of Church and State resolution? I'm fairly certain there is, and that's about the only thing that you need to protect religious freedom.

It turns out that everybody in a UN member state already has to be allowed to choose their own faith. Pojonia is correct.



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.

That is the purpose of the United Nations here. If the thought that your theocracy could be threatened, an entertaining possibility in and of itself if your leader claims to be a God, you are free to abstain from membership in the United Nations. Feel free to campaign against any issues you dislike, of course, but please at least don't complain about the mechanisms by which the institution runs - membership is voluntary.I submit that it is you who do not understand the purpose of the United Nations.

The function of this body is to regulate international affairs; the proper scope of our operations lies therein - and there alone. It is the responsibility of the Members, the sovereign states that comprise the United Nations, to regulate intranational matters.

Freedom of religion - however desirable - is not a matter of international concern. Christian, Moslem, Zoroastrian, atheistic, and secular states can all interact peacably and legally without anybody saying a thing about what religions are and are not permitted where. This means that the resolution proposed - even if it were legal - is completely out of scope.

The NSUN can regulate matters of diplomatic nicety, cultural exchange, international trade, international security, world health, disaster relief, and other matters where one nation's actions affect us all. The relationship between state and citizen w/re to matters such as political freedom or civil rights have no bearing on international relations.

Therefore, it is improper for the NSUN to pretend to be a world government and supercede the will of its Membership in such areas.

I submit that it is you who do not understand the purpose of the United Nations.

The function of this body is to regulate international affairs; the proper scope of our operations lies therein - and there alone. It is the responsibility of the Members, the sovereign states that comprise the United Nations, to regulate intranational matters.

Freedom of religion - however desirable - is not a matter of international concern. Christian, Moslem, Zoroastrian, atheistic, and secular states can all interact peacably and legally without anybody saying a thing about what religions are and are not permitted where. This means that the resolution proposed - even if it were legal - is completely out of scope.

The NSUN can regulate matters of diplomatic nicety, cultural exchange, international trade, international security, world health, disaster relief, and other matters where one nation's actions affect us all. The relationship between state and citizen w/re to matters such as political freedom or civil rights have no bearing on international relations.

Therefore, it is improper for the NSUN to pretend to be a world government and supercede the will of its Membership in such areas.

I happen to agree with you that the NSUN should not mandate intranational policy. The problem is that the membership of the UN determines the scope (within the constraints of the rules of the game) of the UN by passing or refraining from passing resolutions.

The actual scope of the UN is determined by two things:

1. The UN ruleset.
2. The passed legislation.

There are no other limitations, though some will point to this part of the FAQ and try to tell you that it lays out the purpose of the UN.

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest.

This is absolutely true, but it doesn't really give us any information on the scope or purpose of the UN. The UN is our chance to do a lot of things, not just "mold the rest of the world". We could refrain from doing anything at all in the UN, if we wanted. That's because Max kindly left it up to the membership to decide what the UN will do or not do within the constraints of the rules.

I agree with the fast-moving gentleman from Texas that technically the U.N. may try to turn itself into a World Government if it wishes. I am imploring its Members not to do so.

Let us handle domestic affairs internally, and international affairs in these halls.

I agree with the fast-moving gentleman from Texas that technically the U.N. may try to turn itself into a World Government if it wishes. I am imploring its Members not to do so.

Let us handle domestic affairs internally, and international affairs in these halls.

I completely agree. That sentiment is something several people have been trying to promote in the UN for a very long time. :)

[shameless plug]You may want to take a look at the National Sovereignty Coalition link in my signature and register on the NSC forum if you are interested in maintaining the scope of the UN. :) [/shameless plug]

Originally Posted by Resolution 26

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.

Does that mean that Lord Jevah is breaking the law? I think it does... hehe

What do we do about this?

Does that mean that Lord Jevah is breaking the law? I think it does... hehe

What do we do about this?

We can ignore Jehvah's godmoding. Or I suppose we could nuke his nation. Whichever. Just keep in mind the Eon Convention when committing genocide by nuking his nation. :D

While Cobdenia is a secular nation, we agree with Allemende, Texas Hotrodders et al. This is a matter for governments to decide at a national level

Does that mean that Lord Jevah is breaking the law? I think it does... hehe

What do we do about this?
If you want to nuke him, I'll lend you some.

Just make sure he's in his home country.

Religion is a disease, an evil cancer. The future of a totalitarian and collectivist state is impossible with religion clogging people's morality. Religion should be outlawed, not encouraged. Individualism must be destroyed.

Religion is a disease, an evil cancer. The future of a totalitarian and collectivist state is impossible with religion clogging people's morality. Religion should be outlawed, not encouraged. Individualism must be destroyed.
If you want to nuke him, I'll lend you some.

Just make sure he's in his home country.