NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations,

Noting with deep concern the infringement upon the religious rights of the individual,

Guided by United Nations Resolution # 19 and # 80,

Aware of the need for further acknowledged principles,

Affirms that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance,

Proclaims the inherent right of the individual to declare no religion or deny the subsistence of religion,

Confirms the freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious advocacy,

Declares that nothing in this resolution may be interpreted as implying for any state, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms of other individuals.

I believed that resolutions adopted by the UN that considered relgious freedoms simply did not cover the basic rights. Resolution # 19 calls for greater support of tolerance and understanding and condemns the use wars in the name of a supreme being(s). It does not cover the basic rights of the individual to changer their religion, create a religion, deny religion, or advocacy for or against religion. I also felt that the last segment of my proposal was needed to simply make it clear that just because there is freedom of anti-religious advocacy doesn't mean there is necessarily freedom to anti-religious (or in the reverse religious) propaganda. In addition, resolution # 80 only declares that no one religion is better than another.

I would accept any comments, and I am willing to debate my position. I also submitted a Right to Education. I am aware of a few faults with that proposal in particular, and wiling to discuss that as well; however, I feel that of the two this one has the greatest chance of success.

I believed that resolutions adopted by the UN that considered relgious freedoms simply did not cover the basic rights. Resolution # 19 calls for greater support of tolerance and understanding and condemns the use wars in the name of a supreme being(s). It does not cover the basic rights of the individual to changer their religion, create a religion, deny religion, or advocacy for or against religion. I also felt that the last segment of my proposal was needed to simply make it clear that just because there is freedom of anti-religious advocacy doesn't mean there is necessarily freedom to anti-religious (or in the reverse religious) propaganda. In addition, resolution # 80 only declares that no one religion is better than another.

Changing religion is covered in the freedom to believe what you want. So is creating a religion. Denying one is illegal due to UN law supporting the freedom of religion. The rest are covered by the free speech clause in the Universal Bill of Rights, and that also includes the use of propaganda.

In other words, this is completely unnecessary.

I would accept any comments, and I am willing to debate my position. I also submitted a Right to Education. I am aware of a few faults with that proposal in particular, and wiling to discuss that as well; however, I feel that of the two this one has the greatest chance of success.

If you wish it discussed, post it. However, that other one has already been done. Twice.

Well, there are shortfalls of the resolutions you mentioned. Resolution # 26 does mention freedom to choose any religion, but does not state the right to declare no religion or deny religion. There is protection for the devout theists, but what about the simple deists, agnostics, or athiests. In addition, yes choosing a religion and creating a religion is somethine that is difficult to regulate on account of it remains within yourself. There is no protection for the creation of or expression of religious ideas in public as a group. Resolution #26 does state freedom to assemble which can be interpreted as the right to gather together, perhaps in the name of religion. This does not protect however the right to teach religious ideals, and worship publicly.

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.
This one segment specifically does not enforce the principles within the resolution, therefore resolution #26 is not even strong in its strength. The proposal I have submitted also does not submit any penalties or oversight, that is why i dentified it as mild. It simply additional UN policy, that will lead to changes within the UN institutions.

Well, there are shortfalls of the resolutions you mentioned. Resolution # 26 does mention freedom to choose any religion, but does not state the right to declare no religion or deny religion.

Nor does it have to. The freedom to choose includes the freedom to refuse the choices, unless stated otherwise.

There is protection for the devout theists, but what about the simple deists, agnostics, or athiests.

They also are protected. After all, there is nothing saying you have to choose a religion.

In addition, yes choosing a religion and creating a religion is somethine that is difficult to regulate on account of it remains within yourself. There is no protection for the creation of or expression of religious ideas in public as a group.

The creation of religion is choosing to worship a religion of your own design. The expression of religion, while inherently stupid to do in some nations, is freedom of expression.

Resolution #26 does state freedom to assemble which can be interpreted as the right to gather together, perhaps in the name of religion.

Yep. So use it for such.

This does not protect however the right to teach religious ideals, and worship publicly.

Once again, freedom of speech.

This one segment specifically does not enforce the principles within the resolution, therefore resolution #26 is not even strong in its strength.

Wrong. It specifically says, "If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected." In other words, it overrides them in the cases where they do not already have certain rights protected.

The proposal I have submitted also does not submit any penalties or oversight, that is why i dentified it as mild.

Penalties and oversight are handled by the UN gnomes. The strength is in what it does.

It simply additional UN policy, that will lead to changes within the UN institutions.

No, it's simply wasted legislation that allows what is already protected. No changes will happen.

Wrong. It specifically says, "If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected." In other words, it overrides them in the cases where they do not already have certain rights protected.
Herby protected? "The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members." Wouldn't it be safe to assume that if the bill does not override existing Bill of Rights, or lack of them, then the bill does not override already established legislation within a nation. The "they" refers to the already establisheed doctrine of a nation. The next sentence "If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights." refers to rights already provided. How does the phrase "does not override" state that rights not provided... will be?

All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith... The very fact that the right to not choose expresses a bias. It has to be assumed that the right to not choose a specific religion or to deny religion is given. In an organization as large as the UN we cannot run from the spirt of the law, but the word. We do not know how it is to be seen through the eyes of the majority.

I question the protection given by Article 2. It expresses the right of expression through speech and media. It does not specifically protect the rights of symbolic speech that may represent action instead of ideals. There is a requirement for additional freedom of manifestation or action, individually; in community with others, in public or in private. Freedom of expression through speech may provide for teaching, some forms of worship, and forms of practice; however, it does not fully protect the display of one's religion. By taking a very limited view of this article, the rights are not fully covered.

Since all human beings exist as part of individual nations, their individual access to enjoyment of freedom of religion is reflected by the history of individual nations with regards to their citizens. This relationship is unfortunately not given the greatest amoutn of emphasis with resolution # 26.

Herby protected? "The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members." Wouldn't it be safe to assume that if the bill does not override existing Bill of Rights, or lack of them, then the bill does not override already established legislation within a nation. The "they" refers to the already establisheed doctrine of a nation. The next sentence "If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights." refers to rights already provided. How does the phrase "does not override" state that rights not provided... will be?

The "they" mentioned isn't refering to the nation. It's referring to the rights granted by the UBR. That is provided by the fact it is discussing the legality of its own rights. What it was stating it that the rights it grants are in addition to whatever rights a nation grants instead of replacing them.

The very fact that the right to not choose expresses a bias. It has to be assumed that the right to not choose a specific religion or to deny religion is given. In an organization as large as the UN we cannot run from the spirt of the law, but the word. We do not know how it is to be seen through the eyes of the majority.

Do a poll of the majority. Then you'll find out.

The right to worship any faith does not, in its wording, deny the possibility of a lack of a faith.

I question the protection given by Article 2. It expresses the right of expression through speech and media. It does not specifically protect the rights of symbolic speech that may represent action instead of ideals. There is a requirement for additional freedom of manifestation or action, individually; in community with others, in public or in private. Freedom of expression through speech may provide for teaching, some forms of worship, and forms of practice; however, it does not fully protect the display of one's religion. By taking a very limited view of this article, the rights are not fully covered.

Freedom of action is, inherently, covered in what is allowed. Having already established that religion itself is protected, you can safely assume all parts of it -sans the items that are inherently government-controlled in many nations, such as marriage- are also protected. And considering speech does not necessarily require the use, or even presence, of vocal cords, you can classify display of one's religion under it. The protection of freedom of speech doesn't say it excludes symbolic speech.

Since all human beings exist as part of individual nations, their individual access to enjoyment of freedom of religion is reflected by the history of individual nations with regards to their citizens. This relationship is unfortunately not given the greatest amoutn of emphasis with resolution # 26.

Nor could it be, due to the variety of UN nations. It never will be able to due to how varying UN nations are.

So your only opposition to this proposal is that it states what has been previously been assumed. I don't necessarily see how that is destructive or necessarily repetitive if indeed the rights detailed are not stated in previous legislation.

So your only opposition to this proposal is that it states what has been previously been assumed. I don't necessarily see how that is destructive or necessarily repetitive if indeed the rights detailed are not stated in previous legislation.

My arguement is that this is unnecessary because all of what you have said is basically covered. You have yet to prove that it isn't, and the items you have pointed to are vague enough to allow massive room of interpretation. It is not explicitly covered, but neither is it explicitly covered that a prostitute should use birth control to prevent pregnancy.

The very absense of the specific inclusion of these very basic rights indicates a deliberate act. Sure, anything is possible, and yes anything could be assumed... But the very basic rights as lsited in my proposal fill in where resolution #26 leaves broad interpretation. Example: A state holding laïcité in the highest regard may read Articles 1, 2, and 3 and interpret those articles as to extend the greatest of civil religious liberties. Consider a reactionary government that could argue against such freedom. Such a regime could point to grammer within Article 1 to indicate that an individual has the right to worship, or acknowledge the benefits of another religion rather than worship as a member of another faith. The reactionary government could also subjectivly decide upon the definition of faith. This decision does not necessarily have to be actions of the state. In real life for example (I am aware these are nor reactionary regimes), the FRG refuses to recognize Scientology as a religion, just as in the United States the public in general considers the organization a cult and considers such a social taboo. In addition, just as a government may interpret speech to include symbolic speech that represents an idea, and actions that represent an action, as well as personal action. Article 1 may grant permission to unofficially be a member of another religion; however, a nation may consider the right to publicly display theese beliefs to be illegal (as is the case in the Middle Eastern monarchies as well as some sub-saharan nations). I also think that it could be argued that the fact that the word "media" appears in the sentence makes the entire article refer to freedom of communication and not the expression of ideals, or more speciaifcally representative conduct. The third article doesn't necessarily preserve the right to worship, teach, or observe a particular religion. A reactionary regime could easily interpret the article as that it merely protects the right to assemble together. This makes freedom of assembly closely linked with notions of freedom of speech. For example, one can be allowed to be a member of a group that advocates the murder of the President, one is not necessarily allowed to be a member of a group that seeks to achieve this goal. I am aware that many of these interpretations are out of the mainstream, but that is the point. The very fact that they can be argued means that no harm can arise from the confirmation of basic human rights.

Would you please put some paragraphs in for me. It is early on a sunday morning and that large block of text is a little imposing.

The United Nations,

Noting with deep concern the infringement upon the religious rights of the individual,

Guided by United Nations Resolution # 19 and # 80,

Aware of the need for further acknowledged principles,

Affirms that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance,

Proclaims the inherent right of the individual to declare no religion or deny the subsistence of religion,

Confirms the freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious advocacy,

Declares that nothing in this resolution may be interpreted as implying for any state, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms of other individuals.

I do agree that there isn't sufficient protection for the irreligious or for the rights of worshippers in current legislation - if the UBR promised freedom of expression, it would be ok, but it very specifically only grants the right to expression through speech.

I'd suggest changing the "Proclaims..." clause to "Proclaims the inherent right of the individual to bear and declare beliefs or lack of belief independent of any established religion" which makes it easier to protect those devising their own religious beliefs.

In the paragraph before, so as to avoid re-implementing rights previously granted, and to restrict practices like non-consensual human sacrifice, I'd say it should be:

Affirms that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; as well as the freedom to change his religion or belief granted by resolution #26,Universal Bill of Rights, this right includes the freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance, as long as said manifestation does not infringe on the rights of others, in particular the right not to be exposed to a significant risk of bodily harm without prior uncoerced consent,

Yeah, I thought of the dangers of human sacrifice after I submitted it... I doagree with the changes you suggest. With only 33 endorsements, I believe that the proposal will likely not make it. So I will resubmit the proposal when the current one dies with the respective changes.

The very absense of the specific inclusion of these very basic rights indicates a deliberate act.

Or, the assumption people are smart enough they don't need every little detail spelled out to them. I'm beginning to wonder if that assumption is false.

Sure, anything is possible, and yes anything could be assumed... But the very basic rights as lsited in my proposal fill in where resolution #26 leaves broad interpretation.

The broad interpretation is the point. It allows it to cover quite a bit without using thousands of words in the process.

Example: A state holding laïcité in the highest regard may read Articles 1, 2, and 3 and interpret those articles as to extend the greatest of civil religious liberties. Consider a reactionary government that could argue against such freedom. Such a regime could point to grammer within Article 1 to indicate that an individual has the right to worship, or acknowledge the benefits of another religion rather than worship as a member of another faith. The reactionary government could also subjectivly decide upon the definition of faith.

If they are doing that, then they could pull the same thing with yours and find some way of raping it to have a different meaning. Really, every resolution has methods of exploitation. You have to accept a reasonable risk.

This decision does not necessarily have to be actions of the state. In real life for example (I am aware these are nor reactionary regimes), the FRG refuses to recognize Scientology as a religion, just as in the United States the public in general considers the organization a cult and considers such a social taboo.

Well, FRG has a point. The founder of Scientology made the comment about the quickest way to get rich is to start a religion. It's quite possible he decided to prove it.

In addition, just as a government may interpret speech to include symbolic speech that represents an idea, and actions that represent an action, as well as personal action. Article 1 may grant permission to unofficially be a member of another religion; however, a nation may consider the right to publicly display theese beliefs to be illegal (as is the case in the Middle Eastern monarchies as well as some sub-saharan nations).

If they wish to make it illegal, point out the word "speech" in "symbolic speech" and move on.

I also think that it could be argued that the fact that the word "media" appears in the sentence makes the entire article refer to freedom of communication and not the expression of ideals, or more speciaifcally representative conduct.

Media includes the expression of ideas through what the media shows. Separating the two is nearly impossible.

The third article doesn't necessarily preserve the right to worship, teach, or observe a particular religion. A reactionary regime could easily interpret the article as that it merely protects the right to assemble together. This makes freedom of assembly closely linked with notions of freedom of speech. For example, one can be allowed to be a member of a group that advocates the murder of the President, one is not necessarily allowed to be a member of a group that seeks to achieve this goal. I am aware that many of these interpretations are out of the mainstream, but that is the point. The very fact that they can be argued means that no harm can arise from the confirmation of basic human rights.

And they'll do exactly the same thing with yours, resulting in your proposal not changing anything. Go through it with the idea of purposefully interpretting items to support each of those viewpoints. A nation can easily define "religion," "belief," "thought," etc. in any method it wishes to support a viewpoint. Just as you pointed out those weaknesses in previous resolutions, yours suffers the same weakness.

Well, we could debate that mass media refers to the communication institutions rather than the impact and the information detailed... especially if those agencies are state run. Anyways, you and I tend to agree that there are means of moving around any resolution. Wouldn't you agree that this proposals decreases the ease in which that may occur?

Well, we could debate that mass media refers to the communication institutions rather than the impact and the information detailed... especially if those agencies are state run. Anyways, you and I tend to agree that there are means of moving around any resolution. Wouldn't you agree that this proposals decreases the ease in which that may occur?

Nope. All it requires is the same creativity the first one did and a few more definitions, and that barely takes effort.

Nope. All it requires is the same creativity the first one did and a few more definitions, and that barely takes effort.

I don't understand. Are you referring to resolution #26... If so I failt o see how its creative and I don't understand "few more definitions".

I don't understand. Are you referring to resolution #26... If so I failt o see how its creative and I don't understand "few more definitions".

My fault for not being clear.

I meant, perverting your proposal requires just as much effort as 26. All it requires is making up definitions on the spot, and that's not hard to do.

Don't we already have a freedom of religion resolution?

Well, there are shortfalls of the resolutions you mentioned. Resolution # 26 does mention freedom to choose any religion, but does not state the right to declare no religion or deny religion.

"Declaring no religion" cannot be a right since it violates relgious freedom. A government cannot be free to Declare such. People cannot "Declare" as such, since individually they possess no lordly authority... Same occurs with denial. No one can deny "religion" because all people possess "religious" ideals, even atheism is a religion by the philosophical definition, since it is a subset of theology and therefore religious thought. Belief in the non-existance of God, is still a belief regarding God.

There is protection for the devout theists, but what about the simple deists, agnostics, or athiests.

They too possess the same protections, since they are all religious belief systems.

In addition, yes choosing a religion and creating a religion is somethine that is difficult to regulate on account of it remains within yourself. There is no protection for the creation of or expression of religious ideas in public as a group.

A group is a group of individuals... The "Group" possess the same rights as the individuals in the group... As such, your argument in moot.

Resolution #26 does state freedom to assemble which can be interpreted as the right to gather together, perhaps in the name of religion. This does not protect however the right to teach religious ideals, and worship publicly.

The freedom to assemble does provide that right... The legal definition of "assemble" (to come or meet together in a group often formally or for a common purpose) conveys that right... Since "teaching" and "worship" are subsets of the protected rights of religion, they are equally protected and conveyed to the whole of the group, since in possession of all individuals of the group.


This one segment specifically does not enforce the principles within the resolution, therefore resolution #26 is not even strong in its strength. The proposal I have submitted also does not submit any penalties or oversight, that is why i dentified it as mild. It simply additional UN policy, that will lead to changes within the UN institutions.

Policy which is not needed since it provides no additional protection.