NationStates Jolt Archive

Just wanted to bring attention to everybody about a new proposal in the UN. As of today (17th) its on page 16.
I would like to see people support this and also what are some peoples views on the matter.

A M.O.S.S. proposal, would you mind posting the text here so that we may more readily comment on it.

I've been meaning to ask, what does M.O.S.S stand for?

I've been meaning to ask, what does M.O.S.S stand for?
Moo Oink Squee Squee, it was the actual text of a proposal.

I believe this is the proposal in question:
Category: Political Stability


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Trowk

Description: This resolution is suggested to put a strict definition to the Separation of Church and State.

This resolution is not only to restrict church involvement but also limit the governments involvement in the chuch to come to a religious/political equilibrium.

Below are a set of rules which define Separation of Chuch and State for all nations:

1. This resolution does not apply to religious concepts, connections, or anything related to the basis of the nation (the consistution).
2. No church official is to use their power of a church to override a polition or political decision.
3. The State has no power to influence the churches decisions.
4. Point #3 becomes void if the churches decisions threaten human rights.
5. The State is not held liable for the funding of any church or religious assembly, religious meetings or groups, pilgramages or missions, religious landmarks, religious related buildings or monuments, and religious education centers or other religious facilities.
6. The definition of marriage is to be left up to the individual churches and in no way to the say of the government.
7. The State is to stay out of any religious conflicts or international involvment unless any of this shows signifigant evidance of leading the country to war or conflict it wishes to stay out of.
8. The decision of whether religious officials can run for political positions, but if the are elected and violate, or try to find away around, this resoltion can be impeached for these actions.

All of these points apply to ALL religions.

Failure to comply with this resolution will lead to the United Nation's decision on the nation's fate.

If a nation is ran by a nation, the people are happy, and signs of progression are seen then this resolution becomes void. If their are any problems with the nation ran by a religion then the United Nations will decide on a plan of involvement.

There is no church or state in MLSR, but this proposal is clearly a move to give governments a monopoly on power and restrict religious freedoms. This descision should be down to those concerned, not the UN.

I'm against this resolution merely because theocracies have just as much a right to exist as do democracies.

Hold on a second can you guys take the pot out of your mouths one second and realize that no one has anything to loose, the Church countries are happy as long as their people are, the state is happy as long as they don't care about a gay wedding here and their, and the people who are always piss off are happy to no this is a win win situation and then they are pissed of again about something totally different. So all delegates please look it over and maybe even approve it.

Honey, if the Church IS the State, you can't separate them.

That's what a Theocracy is.

Which is why I'm against this proposal.

The Grand Duchy strongly opposes this resolution.

No church official is to use their power of a church to override a polition or political decision.

This is a flagrant attack on the right of churches to speak on moral issues, at least if I read its rather incoherent drafting correctly. How a church is to "override" a political decision is unclear. I presume it refers to, for instance, "Abortion is incompatible with being a Catholic. If you wish to remain in good standing with the Church, you must oppose it". If this is indeed what the proposer is driving at, the right of the Church to speak on political and moral issues will be removed, along with dozens of causes in which the Church has advocated political and social reforms.

The Church is a voluntary association, like the Rotary, the rural fire brigade, Trade Unions or the Masonic lodge, and any number of others. To abridge any associations' right to speak on political issues is an outrage, whether you agree with them or not. If members of the Church, including those who make the political decisions, do not like what the Church says, they are free to leave the Church, and find another. Or start their own.

4. Point #3 becomes void if the churches decisions threaten human rights

Human rights as defined by whom? Does this mean a church must admit, for instance, gay or women clergy? If you mean "The church must not incite to violence", "the church must respect the freedom of its members to leave" or something similar, then that's fine, although I should think there are criminal laws to deal with that. So this resolution is either an outrageous attack on freedom of association (the former) or unnecessary (the latter)


8. The decision of whether religious officials can run for political positions, but if the are elected and violate, or try to find away around, this resoltion can be impeached for these actions.

Yet another attack on freedom of speech.

And for the "Church countries", which presumably are those you are targeting, like the Grand Duchy, the first clause"

1. This resolution does not apply to religious concepts, connections, or anything related to the basis of the nation (the consistution).

This invalidates all the rest. If this proposal is passed, (Heaven forfend), then the Grand Duchy will invoke this clause, and its effects will be minor.

We ask, what's the point of this proposal? What are you trying to achieve?

If you read carefully Theocracies don't have to worry, as long as the people are happy their is no need for a separation. The quote above has an error if a nation is run by the church not nation

You didn't answer the question. Why should we have the State dictating to the Church what it can and can't say?

Even though I, for one, don't like the government interfering in religion or vice versa, I don't feel I could support this proposal.

I respect a nation's right to be a religious nation. There are some countries where the head of the church is also the head of state, and this would destroy them.

Passing a proposal like this would unfair to member nations in that some wouldn't be affected, but others would be torn apart.

Are we really supposed to sink so low as to say we're better than them? I don't feel this is right.

Ummm...I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that this proposal is in violation of the Enodian Protocols and the "Rights and Duties of UN States" resolution. If I'm reading this correctly, it would be a de facto repeal of a "Rights and Duties of UN States" because it implicitly attempts to eliminate an essential part of the theocratic governmental form, and as such would be illegal according to UN guidelines.

You all are presenting some very interesting views on this subject. I can't say i have ever liked the term division of church and state...but I must say, the proposal was made in a very fair sounding way. The person making it tried to look at it from all sides, and try is all any of us can do. For the moment i couldn't vote for it, but I do want to compliment you on your way of presenting it.

Lady Katia

The Holy Empire of Sidestreamer is outraged that such a proposal is even being considered on this floor, although we feel we are wasting our time assaulting it. Even the secularist liberals who frequent this floor appear opposed, and we will leave it to them to sully this atrocity.

--Welsh

Hey, if Sidestreamers against it, it must have some good points. Maybe I oughta reconsider my position... :p

Hey, if Sidestreamers against it, it must have some good points. Maybe I oughta reconsider my position... :p
hehe, i would think the same..... but i agree. though we disagree with them, and agree with the fact that state and church should be indeed seperate, we aknowledge the existance of theocracies, thus are against this bill. if Sidestreamers wants to bring in the merging of church and state, well, thats another matter....

The UN is an organization that was formed to help with internacional policy. Why should we care what each individual state wants to do? If a nation exists, that all believe in the same god, and wants their holy man to preside, what authority do we have to make them seperate church from state? I am against theocracy, but the UN has NO right whatsoever, to tell a country how to run itself. We are peacekeepers, not police.

We the Pinkish Floydians are by no means a theocracy, but we respect religion and religious people. We can not vote for this proposal. The state has no right to tell people what they can and can't worship and how they can or can't worship whatever they want.

We the Pinkish Floydians are by no means a theocracy, but we respect religion and religious people. We can not vote for this proposal. The state has no right to tell people what they can and can't worship and how they can or can't worship whatever they want.

Uh... I believe the point of seperation of church and state is to stop the government from influencing the religion of the people and vice versa... My state is completely seperated from the religious groups there, but I don't think that just because my state is means that all states should.

As a brief sidebar, there are many religions in Fatus Maximus. There are the Yen Buddhists, who comprise 17% of the population. Having fully embraced the concept that "money is the root of all evil", they have dedicated their lives to hoarding as much of it as they can in their large mansions in order to save others from it's dangerous effects. Then there are the Potataoists, who worship the Potato God, whom you can sacrifice to here (www.angelfire.com/pa2/potatogod), who make of 23% of the population. An additional 63% describes themselves as non-religious, and the remaining 7% are Christians, who are kept around for the sole amusement of the other groups.

Hey, if Sidestreamers against it, it must have some good points. Maybe I oughta reconsider my position... :p


OOC: LMFAO!

We the Pinkish Floydians are by no means a theocracy, but we respect religion and religious people. We can not vote for this proposal. The state has no right to tell people what they can and can't worship and how they can or can't worship whatever they want.

Thus prooving a separation of Church and state. Great! we can all go home. :p

As a nation that firmly believes in the absolute seperation of church and state...May I pick this apart? Thank you.

Originally Posted by Separtion(sic) of Church and State
Category: Political Stability


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Trowk

Description: This resolution is suggested to put a strict definition to the Separation of Church and State.

This resolution is not only to restrict church involvement but also limit the governments involvement in the chuch to come to a religious/political equilibrium.

Below are a set of rules which define Separation of Chuch and State for all nations:
At this point in the game, this has peaked my intrest

1. This resolution does not apply to religious concepts, connections, or anything related to the basis of the nation (the consistution).
ok

2. No church official is to use their power of a church to override a polition or political decision.
alright

3. The State has no power to influence the churches decisions.
well, ok

4. Point #3 becomes void if the churches decisions threaten human rights.
uh...see point 1. Say the church believes that homosexuality is a sin and therefore two members of the same sex cannot marry. The gay community says that this violates their civil rights. Two people should be able to marry whomever they wish. Gender shouldn't matter. The "state" agrees that this is a civil rights issue and tries to interfere. The church gets in an uproar because they say that their decision to not marry two members of the same sex is part of their doctorine (religious concepts), therefore the state should stay out of it. Who should take precidence? State or church? Think carefully. This is both a CIVIL and a CONCEPTUAL issue.

5. The State is not held liable for the funding of any church or religious assembly, religious meetings or groups, pilgramages or missions, religious landmarks, religious related buildings or monuments, and religious education centers or other religious facilities.
OK, but what if a religious landmark is also a huge historical landmark that the state DOES take intrest in (Let's say something like the battlesite for the independance of Sphinx the Great from the evil dictatorship of Rexfelis? The church was the one who organized this independance revolution, without whom the state of Sphinx the Great would not exist.) Would it be fair to make the church pay for the upkeep of said landmark or should the state contribute because they have a stake in the landmark as well?

6. The definition of marriage is to be left up to the individual churches and in no way to the say of the government.
See my comment in Point 4.

7. The State is to stay out of any religious conflicts or international involvment unless any of this shows signifigant evidance of leading the country to war or conflict it wishes to stay out of.
Again...conflict with Point 1.

8. The decision of whether religious officials can run for political positions, but if the are elected and violate, or try to find away around, this resoltion can be impeached for these actions.
Not exactly sure what this one means.

All of these points apply to ALL religions.

Failure to comply with this resolution will lead to the United Nation's decision on the nation's fate.

If a nation is ran by a nation, the people are happy, and signs of progression are seen then this resolution becomes void. If their are any problems with the nation ran by a religion then the United Nations will decide on a plan of involvement.
I assume you mean if the nation is run by a religion?

Well, That is my take on this. Fire away ;)

While Cobdenia is secular, we cannot support this proposal. This proposal would mean the effective outlawing of Theocracy, which is against UN law.

If you read carefully Theocracies don't have to worry, as long as the people are happy their is no need for a separation. The quote above has an error if a nation is run by the church not nation

Right, so if the people are going through tough times the UN has a resolution in the books that will require a replacement of that theocratic government. Psh, what if people in a democracy with no God is unhappy? Nothing, the UN can't touch them. This resolution is rubbish. Nevermoore spits upon it.

OOC: LMFAO!


:cool:

I had thought that we already had a seperation of Church and State resolution already. Not bad, though.