NationStates Jolt Archive

Below is the most recent version of the proposal in question:

Right to Learn about Evolution
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Saint Lucius Malfoy

Description: REGRETTING the threat to human rights which is the suppression of learning about evolutionary theory;

AWARE that some of causes of this suppression are political and/or religious based fears that evolution is an alternative to belief in a deity;

NOTING that many religions do not feel threatened by evolutionary theory. Furthermore it is unlikely that God is so malevolent as to plant evidence that our planet is aged 3.5 billion years;

EMPHASIZING the United Nations must collectively discourage the suppression of this grand unifying theme called evolutionary theory. Teachers of the idea should also be free from imprisonment and persecution.

CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include evolutionary theory in the classroom because a lack of interest by teachers and/or students. This will not be interpreted by the UN as evidence of suppression. Suppression is defined as written laws preventing the teaching of evolutionary theory or punishing those who teach it.

MANDATES a strong symbolical disapproval against any member state that persists to physically imprison / punish teachers or students for engaging in evolutionary studies.

REITERATES the need for member nations to allow students to learn about evolutionary theory;

ASKS member nations work with world leaders to prevent the suppression of evolutionary theory in the classroom.


Votes For: 683: , Expressionasia[3], Crooks and fiends[9], New Cyberia[4], Krya[3], Nevscrow[76], Leagueheim[3], Milwaukey[5], Terror Incognitia[3], JujenDanq[11], Iznogoud[2], The Human Beings[2], United Areas[2], Zoanthropia[4], Ishistan[3], Neo-Pangaea[6], Worldia555[2], Germireland[3], Mosstopia[3], Nerrethans[10], Seberian[2], , Phucitanewa[3], Spiky Peoples[2], Plutonix[5], Auria Sol[4], Killa Kev[6], Milination[2], , Republic of Freedonia[15], Karlovia[3], Tsukame[2], TheUnion[3], Odem[5], Pirates of Vlissingen[2], Bluemason[2], Mayve[3], Iabastan[2], Trahsiw[3], US Liberals[14], Jonezistan[5], Nocra[3], Whatumakeofit[2], Squishystan[5], Pilantras[8], Blaming[3], Beerhood[2], Sorry Suckers[8], United democratic[3], Sorrow Crown[7], C1ndy[7], Venerable libertarians[4], Incompetent Lunacy[4], Wasted Arseholes[2], Calamor[7], Woeterkije[7], Ferantia[4], Jimbob the Jingoistic[11], Netherilien[2], , Center County[2], Simillarianth[2], New Koalastan[3], Luse[4], Even Greater Zognor[2], Askira[3], .

Votes Against: 181: , Poprockistan[3], Nutema[4], Anni Landia[2], Dhamour[2], , Sporkitorus[4], Mighty Stoke[2], Groot Gouda[22], Kreisau[2], Cinciberlandia[2], Cobdenia[3], Bestiville[18], Zyphyr[4], Michelmersh[4], Auxillia[5], Iberostar[11], Nova Capitalia[2], NeoAsiaEuropa[4], Norvikeland[5], Johnimus[5], , Dorris The Destroyer[3].


Voting Ends: Sun May 8 2005

As I said in the other topic, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will not support this proposal as we believe that the specific teachings of a nation's educational system should be left up to the individual nations to decide.

As I said in the other topic, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will not support this proposal as we believe that the specific teachings of a nation's educational system should be left up to the individual nations to decide.

Point well-taken. It is not the intention of the proposal to force nations to teach evolution. However it is the intention of the proposal to openly discourage nations from the active suppression of it (e.g., setting rules against teaching evolutionary theory in science class) and/or punishing science teachers who decide to teach their students about evolutionary theory.

Is that not a reasonable approach? I can easily imagine a culture that does not teach evolutionary theory because they are simply not interested in it. In such cases this would not be a violation of the resolution. However if any nation that suppresses information on evolution (e.g., banning books on evolutionary theory or punishing teachers that mention it in science class) would be in direct violation of the resolution. In response the UN may consider warning the nation in violation or in particularly nasty cases (e.g., torture / murder of teachers and students studying the idea) the nation would lose their UN status.

I like this proposal - I think it's important that evolutionary theory is teached.

The RL occurances of schools not teaching it just smack of idiocy, in my opinion.

However, do I think the RL UN are interested in what a few schools do or do not teach? No - I just don't think you've found a subject which inspires action.

Have you made any efforts to bring this to the attention of delegates, by mass telegram campaigns? It might help you. But in honesty, I don't think the UN would be interested. If a few kids in other nations are dumber and less educated than your kids, it's only a good thing for your kids. ;)

i am in agreeance with the boss (Flibbleites) on this one. what schools do and do not teach in different nations isnt something that is UN worthy. that, coupled with the fact that there are theocracies that probably wouldnt like to be forced into teaching evolution if they have outlawed it, is probably why it wont go far

OOC: we call flibbleites boss coz he is the delegate for our region

And in this crazy mixed-up Nations States world, pretty much anything goes. There are probably hundreds of nations in which evolution did not happen, or at least they claim as such. There are many non-human nations, for example, for whom human evolution is inapplicable, and it would be unfair then to impose the teaching of human evolution on them.

Well okay, but evolution is not just about humans - neither is it FOR humans. It just is. Humans are an integral and relatively small part of it, and just to learn humility (which the Bible promotes as well, doesn`t it?), everyone should have the right to learn about it - and perhaps even get to research more on it...

I've read like five or six posts by nations saying they are against forcing nations to teach evolution. In the other thread, I attempted to clear up this misunderstanding. It appears, however, that I was too subtle. There, I am forced to result to large, capitol letters in bold.

THIS PROPOSAL DOE NOT FORCE YOUR NATION TO TEACH EVOLUTION. IT ONLY FORCES YOUR NATION TO GIVE YOUR CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO LEARN ABOUT IT.

I've read like five or six posts by nations saying they are against forcing nations to teach evolution. In the other thread, I attempted to clear up this misunderstanding. It appears, however, that I was too subtle. There, I am forced to result to large, capitol letters in bold.

THIS PROPOSAL DOE NOT FORCE YOUR NATION TO TEACH EVOLUTION. IT ONLY FORCES YOUR NATION TO GIVE YOUR CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO LEARN ABOUT IT.

Thank you for making it clearer. I was very surprised that some nations could not figure this out for themselves. It is not like the proposal was written in a deceptive manner. Indeed the telling sentence was:

"It is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes. However the United Nations must collectively discourage the suppression of this grand unifying theme called evolutionary theory. Teachers of the idea should also be free from imprisonment and persecution."

i am in agreeance with the boss (Flibbleites) on this one. what schools do and do not teach in different nations isnt something that is UN worthy. that, coupled with the fact that there are theocracies that probably wouldnt like to be forced into teaching evolution if they have outlawed it, is probably why it wont go far

it will only be teached if someone wants to do it in a country. So it will only be teachd in theocracies, if there is someone who wants to teach it. Assuming that most people in a theocracy truly believe in the religion that is ruling them then you would assume that there will only be a few who want to teach it and also very few who would believe in it.
You can probably still keep it out of the schools, as you only need to allow people to teach it. However that doesnt have to be done in schools.

Off course some theocracies (as not every religion has a problem with evolution) will still be against it, but I dont think it will harm them much unless they are forcing their believe on their people.

I've read like five or six posts by nations saying they are against forcing nations to teach evolution. In the other thread, I attempted to clear up this misunderstanding. It appears, however, that I was too subtle. There, I am forced to result to large, capitol letters in bold.

THIS PROPOSAL DOE NOT FORCE YOUR NATION TO TEACH EVOLUTION. IT ONLY FORCES YOUR NATION TO GIVE YOUR CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO LEARN ABOUT IT.

Well if it only gives the citizens the right to learn about the theory but forces no action this proposal does about as much good as the emancipation proclemation. This "proposal" will not be able to acomplish anything because of its inability to force any action to be taken. My country is against this poor excuse for a symbolic statement.
-President of the Confederacy of Economic Associates

Well if it only gives the citizens the right to learn about the theory but forces no action this proposal does about as much good as the emancipation proclemation. This "proposal" will not be able to acomplish anything because of its inability to force any action to be taken. My country is against this poor excuse for a symbolic statement.
-President of the Confederacy of Economic Associates

Actually the proposal prohibits the imprisonment, torture and murder of individuals teaching or learning about evolutionary theory. Check out the latest version sans "branding" below:

P.S. Get out there and vote on this (i.e., UN delegates). I understand it is tough for delegates to read through all of the proposals (especially the cruddy ones) but it is their obligation to their region and the UN. With power comes responsibility.
-------------------------------------------------------
Right to Learn about Evolution
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Saint Lucius Malfoy

Description: REGRETTING the threat to human rights which is the suppression of learning about evolutionary theory;

AWARE that some of causes of this suppression are political and/or religious based fears that evolution is an alternative to belief in a deity;

NOTING that many religions do not feel threatened by evolutionary theory. Furthermore it is unlikely that God is so malevolent as to plant evidence that our planet is aged 3.5 billion years;

EMPHASIZING the United Nations must collectively discourage the suppression of this grand unifying theme called evolutionary theory. Teachers of the idea should also be free from imprisonment and persecution.

CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include evolutionary theory in the classroom because a lack of interest by teachers and/or students. This will not be interpreted by the UN as evidence of suppression. Suppression is defined as written laws preventing the teaching of evolutionary theory or punishing those who teach it.

MANDATES that the UN eject member states that persist to physically imprison / punish teachers or students for engaging in evolutionary studies. Nations that suppress the teaching of evolution will be discouraged from doing so but will not be ejected for minor offenses againt the resolution.

REITERATES the need for member nations to allow students to learn about evolutionary theory;

ASKS member nations work with world leaders to prevent the suppression of evolutionary theory in the classroom.


Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 148 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Apr 25 2005

doesnt the UN already prohibit nations from prosecuting people because of a different belief/school of thought

CLARIFIES the United Nation’s position by reiterating the following:

§ The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence.

and that you should be able to say what you want on the media

article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

off course it isnt completly clear, but it is already possible for people to say what they want without being prosecuted and belief what they want.

As I already said, how about we just allow our students to convert to Islam? Evolution is for godless heretics and I will not allow for it to be taught in our schools.

As I already said, how about we just allow our students to convert to Islam? Evolution is for godless heretics and I will not allow for it to be taught in our schools.
uhm you already have to allow your people to choose their own religions* and this proposal doesnt have to allow you to teach it in your schools. Just that you have to allow it to be taught.

*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.

uhm you already have to allow your people to choose their own religions* and this proposal doesnt have to allow you to teach it in your schools. Just that you have to allow it to be taught.

*

It says I have to allow, not encourage it. Evolution encourages deviance. If monkeys are in my lineage, why not have sex with one? I'm sure some will believe this, and it cannot be justified!

I agree with the general idea of supporting teaching evolution, but I don't think this should be single issue proposal - it would be better to have a proposal which opposed the suppression of any scientific theory generally accepted by experts.

Also, you can't mandate that members be ejected - game mechanics. You can just assume that if you use the right language, everyone will be forced to obey.

Finally, the presumption of the existence of god which is implied in the third clause ought to be re-worked.

EDIT: Oh, and even if teachers don't want to teach evolutionary theory, it should still be included in education for the sake of the students.

It says I have to allow, not encourage it. Evolution encourages deviance. If monkeys are in my lineage, why not have sex with one? I'm sure some will believe this, and it cannot be justified!
the first part of my post was to you saying :how about we just allow our students to convert to Islam? You already have to do that.

And you can create (or keep) laws that doesnt allow sex between different species.
Also just because you can link back your lineage to monkeys by going back 1 million year in history, doesnt mean you have to think its ok to have sex with them or it. Actually as far as I know in no country that teaches evolution as the explanation of human origin does anyone think it is ok to have sex with a monkey (or atleast if you go back 1 million year we share the same "parents"). So I dont really understand why you are worried that something like that would happen.

I can understand that you dont believe evolution happens or that it proves we evolved from apes. But not your fear why teaching evolution would lead to people having sex with monkeys.

And as I pointed out your nation already has to allow the teaching of evolution as people are free to express themselves (which means they can talk about evolution) and you cant discriminate against someones beliefs/school of thought (so you cant arrest someone just because he believes evolution is a fact).
Off course having a resolution clearly stating that it is allowed does help, but in my interpretation of the current UN resolutions isnt needed.

It says I have to allow, not encourage it. Evolution encourages deviance. If monkeys are in my lineage, why not have sex with one? I'm sure some will believe this, and it cannot be justified!

Sexual Freedom

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Armstrongonia

Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

Votes For: 2538

Votes Against: 318

Implemented: Thu Mar 13 2003

:p

:p
uhm but that doesnt include monkeys, unless you are saying that a monkey/ape can be considered an adult?

If people in your nation are already allowed to have monkey fetishes and dress up in animal costumes during sex shouting, "Who's a dirty monkey? Who's a dirty monkey?", then how can you have any serious objections against this proposal?

EDIT: Oh, and even if teachers don't want to teach evolutionary theory, it should still be included in education for the sake of the students.

No, that would be forcing a nation to set it's curriculum, which the UN can't- or at least shouldn't- be allowed to do. The most this resolution should be able to do is to guarantee the safety of citizens who choose to learn about evolution.

This reminds me... we need protection for the monkeys, the box turtles, and others from deviants! We have no NSUN resolution barring beastiality!

--Welsh

THIS PROPOSAL DOE NOT FORCE YOUR NATION TO TEACH EVOLUTION. IT ONLY FORCES YOUR NATION TO GIVE YOUR CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO LEARN ABOUT IT.
Regardless of whether or not the proposal forces a nation's school to teach evolution is not an issue, my problem still remains that I don't believe that the UN needs to be interfering with the curriculum within a nation's schools on this or any other topic.

This reminds me... we need protection for the monkeys, the box turtles, and others from deviants! We have no NSUN resolution barring beastiality!

--Welsh

We need one! Sex with box turtles is on the rise in capitalist dictatorships. Or so I have heard.

You have no right to judge us!!! :eek:

I've read like five or six posts by nations saying they are against forcing nations to teach evolution. In the other thread, I attempted to clear up this misunderstanding. It appears, however, that I was too subtle. There, I am forced to result to large, capitol letters in bold.

THIS PROPOSAL DOSE NOT FORCE YOUR NATION TO TEACH EVOLUTION. IT ONLY FORCES YOUR NATION TO GIVE YOUR CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO LEARN ABOUT IT.

I believe that this has already been covered by several resolutions in the past. It is not direct but I'm sure that they cover the right to individual beliefs, which would include evolution. Which makes this idea redundant before it even starts.

I believe that this has already been covered by several resolutions in the past. It is not direct but I'm sure that they cover the right to individual beliefs, which would include evolution. Which makes this idea redundant before it even starts.

Totally disagree. BTW general resolutions are of little use. Furthermore this UN proposal allows a teacher to decide what to teach on their own. There has never been a UN proposal that supports teacher's rights to teach a subject even though the nation or school prohibits it! It is an important step toward a freedom that this world has never known.

Based on the lack of support for this UN proposal I doubt the children of this world will have that freedom.

Regardless of whether or not the proposal forces a nation's school to teach evolution is not an issue, my problem still remains that I don't believe that the UN needs to be interfering with the curriculum within a nation's schools on this or any other topic.

Seconded.

Sod national sovereignty. We are in full support.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Sod national sovereignty. We are in full support.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

^ That, again. :)

Rights of Minorities and Women
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Amsterdam Junior

Description: The UN should recognize that all people are created equal. The matter of race, sex, religion or sexual preference should not make anyone less equal. These are inalienable rights of all UN nation citizens.

ARTICLE I- No one race or culture is better than another.

ARTICLE II- Males and Females should be treated as equals. Whether it be in the workplace or at home.

ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.

ARTICLE IV- One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex.

Your proposal runs counter to Article III of Resolution 80. Why are you campaigning for a citizen's right to learn about evolution, but ignoring a citizen's right to learn about any other belief system? This proposal is skewed in favour of evolutionary beliefs.

If you were to remove the underlined phrases:
REGRETTING the threat to human rights which is the suppression of learning about evolutionary theory;

AWARE that some of causes of this suppression are political and/or religious based fears that evolution is an alternative to belief in a deity;

NOTING that many religions do not feel threatened by evolutionary theory. Furthermore it is unlikely that God is so malevolent as to plant evidence that our planet is aged 3.5 billion years;

EMPHASIZING the United Nations must collectively discourage the suppression of this grand unifying theme called evolutionary theory.Teachers of the idea should also be free from imprisonment and persecution.

CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include evolutionary theory in the classroom because a lack of interest by teachers and/or students. This will not be interpreted by the UN as evidence of suppression. Suppression is defined as written laws preventing the teaching of evolutionary theory or punishing those who teach it.

MANDATES that the UN eject member states that persist to physically imprison / punish teachers or students for engaging in evolutionary studies. Nations that suppress the teaching of evolution will be discouraged from doing so but will not be ejected for minor offenses againt the resolution.

REITERATES the need for member nations to allow students to learn about evolutionary theory;

ASKS member nations work with world leaders to prevent the suppression of evolutionary theory in the classroom.

With the highlighted section removed, the proposal runs as:

REGRETTING the suppression of learning about evolutionary theory;

AWARE that some of causes of this suppression are political and/or religious based fears that evolution is an alternative to belief in a deity;

EMPHASIZING the United Nations must collectively discourage suppression, teachers of the idea should be free from imprisonment and persecution.

CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include evolutionary theory in the classroom because a lack of interest by teachers and/or students. This will not be interpreted by the UN as evidence of suppression. Suppression is defined as written laws preventing the teaching of evolutionary theory or punishing those who teach it.

MANDATES that nations that suppress the teaching of evolution will be discouraged from doing so but will not be ejected.

REITERATES the need for member nations to allow students to learn about evolutionary theory;

ASKS member nations work with world leaders to prevent the suppression of evolutionary theory in the classroom.

There isn't any resolution that guarantees a citizen's right to religious freedom. Why don't you write a proposal that outlaws the suppression of religious teaching, and specifically classify evolution as a religion? That would kill two birds with one stone.

Description: REGRETTING the threat to human rights which is the suppression of learning about evolutionary theory;

AWARE that some of causes of this suppression are political and/or religious based fears that evolution is an alternative to belief in a deity;

NOTING that many religions do not feel threatened by evolutionary theory. Furthermore it is unlikely that God is so malevolent as to plant evidence that our planet is aged 3.5 billion years;

It was good... until the God bit. While Christianity is one of the major religions of the world, it is not the only religion. Also, I find it improper for a proposal to voice personal views and ideas. Stick to the topic; the suppression of the teaching/learning of the evoluntionary theory -- which could be suppressed by more than just Christians and/or religion in general. People just pissed off that we evolved from monkeys can supress the theory as well.

EMPHASIZING the United Nations must collectively discourage the suppression of this grand unifying theme called evolutionary theory. Teachers of the idea should also be free from imprisonment and persecution.

I agree with this, but I think we should widen the horizons a bit to include other science theories in general. I don't think anybody should be supressed from learning about any theory, and that includes evidence that contridicts such theories as well as supports it.

CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include evolutionary theory in the classroom because a lack of interest by teachers and/or students. This will not be interpreted by the UN as evidence of suppression. Suppression is defined as written laws preventing the teaching of evolutionary theory or punishing those who teach it.

If subjects were left out of a classroom because of lack of interest, we wouldn't have too many classes. I don't think this is neccessary, and it also creates a loop hole for such nations who do wish to suppress such theories that you are trying to protect.

The rest is just a repeat of the proposal.

So basically, I think this should be broadened and generalized to protect people from imprisonment or abuse while learning sciences that may contridict the cultural or religious beliefs of the majority.

There isn't any resolution that guarantees a citizen's right to religious freedom. Why don't you write a proposal that outlaws the suppression of religious teaching, and specifically classify evolution as a religion? That would kill two birds with one stone.
you might want to read resolution 19 (religious tolerance) and 26 (universal bill of rights), before saying that a citizens right to religious freedom isnt gauranteed.
Also you cant class a scientific theory or fact as a religion, as there is nothing spiritual about it. Besides you can change a scientific theory if evidence proves it wrong, but in most cases you wont change a religion in such a case.

Furthermore this UN proposal allows a teacher to decide what to teach on their own. Not really this proposal allows teacher to decide wether to teach one subject. That is if they dont get fired if they do, as while the goverments have to allow evolution to be teached that doesnt mean they have to allow it to be teached in their schools.
There has never been a UN proposal that supports teacher's rights to teach a subject even though the nation or school prohibits it! It is an important step toward a freedom that this world has never known.While there is no resolution that allows teacher to teach what they want on a school, the universal bill of rights does say you should be free to say what you wantAll human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference (which means that people are free to tell about the theory of evolution if they wish).

So basically if you want to create a resolution to give teachers the right to decide their own curriculum, you should write one (but I doubt it will ever get passed though). As this one doesnt give that right to teachers even if we are just talking about the theory of evolution.

you might want to read resolution 19 (religious tolerance) and 26 (universal bill of rights), before saying that a citizens right to religious freedom isnt gauranteed.
Also you cant class a scientific theory or fact as a religion, as there is nothing spiritual about it. Besides you can change a scientific theory if evidence proves it wrong, but in most cases you wont change a religion in such a case.

Whereas,
Freedom of Religion does not exist
in all countries in the world.
Whereas,
Too many wars are started and fought
because of religious differences.
Whereas,
There is a need for more religious
tolerance on Earth.

Therefore be it resolved that the United
Nations support and promote a greater understanding
of all religions and promote more tolerance of
differences of religion.
Be it further resolved that the United Nations oppose
all wars fought in the name of God and religion.

This wooly Resolution seems to cause the UN to oppose religious war, and ' support and promote' tolerance, whatever that means. I had read it and dismissed it as too non-specific to have a real impact.

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.
Doesn't make any reference to teaching a religious belief.

For the sake of argument and efficient regulation, let's classify 'evolution' as a belief, and pass a resolution guaranteeing a citizen's right to teach their religion, and barring governments from outlawing the teaching of any religion (with the exception of those deemed illegal by subsequent Resolutions). That would be an efficient method of guaranteeing the right to be taught evolutionary theory, and also the rights to learn any other belief system as a bonus.

I agree with the general idea of supporting teaching evolution, but I don't think this should be single issue proposal - it would be better to have a proposal which opposed the suppression of any scientific theory generally accepted by experts.

Krioval echoes our esteemed colleague from _Myopia_. Expand this to cover all scientific theory generally accepted by experts and Krioval will (barring any horribly monstrous wording) approve it.

Krioval echoes our esteemed colleague from _Myopia_. Expand this to cover all scientific theory generally accepted by experts and Krioval will (barring any horribly monstrous wording) approve it.
We look forward to subsequent documents affirming the theory of human-sourced global warming.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

We look forward to subsequent documents affirming the theory of human-sourced global warming.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I daresay global climate change is a bit more disputed a field, even among serious scientists, than is evolution. We also are not constrained to Earth, so it's a minor issue for most Kriovalians.

Director Varik Dekker
Science and Industry
Armed Republic of Krioval

I daresay global climate change is a bit more disputed a field, even among serious scientists, than is evolution. We also are not constrained to Earth, so it's a minor issue for most Kriovalians.

Director Varik Dekker
Science and Industry
Armed Republic of Krioval
I concur. However, the example does to serve to illustrate how the definition "all scientific theory generally accepted by experts" could be problematic.

[OOC: Sorry, I was stirring a little to illustrate the point. Ain't I just an impish wee scamp? That said, your response reinforces a problem I have with the game: it's very difficult to reconcile backwards little Ecopoeia interacting with galaxy-spanning empires and not wonder why we haven't long ago been swotted like the little flies we are.

Perhaps I need a new UN nation, with Ecopoeia restricted to regional politics...

I think this thread is obsolete, the discussion has moved to 'Is there no interest in "Right to learn about Evolutionary Proposal"?'. Shall we move the debate there?

Just in case delegates missed our contribution to the other thread concerning this proposal, I'll say this:

Sod national sovereignty. Children need to learn about evolution. We support.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Sod national sovereignty. Children need to learn about evolution. We support.

I might lose my membership in the NSC for saying this but I'm not claiming national sovereignty I'm saying that its a bad idea for the UN to start micromanaging its members like this.

I might lose my membership in the NSC for saying this but I'm not claiming national sovereignty I'm saying that its a bad idea for the UN to start micromanaging its members like this.

I agree. It is strange for the UN to single out this specific issue for a resolution.

For the sake of argument, classify 'evolution' as a religious belief. Then propose a resolution to forbid governments to ban religious teaching.

I agree. It is strange for the UN to single out this specific issue for a resolution.

For the sake of argument, classify 'evolution' as a religious belief. Then propose a resolution to forbid governments to ban religious teaching.
To classify evolutionary theory as 'religious belief' is patently inaccurate.

To classify evolutionary theory as 'religious belief' is patently inaccurate.
I apologise for the inaccuracy, evolution could be classified as a "belief system".

This is not the place to debate the nature of evolutionary theory. For the sake of streamlined regulations, it suits the purposes of the UN to place evolution in the same group as religions.

I apologise for the inaccuracy, evolution could be classified as a "belief system".

This is not the place to debate the nature of evolutionary theory. For the sake of streamlined regulations, it suits the purposes of the UN to place evolution in the same group as religions.
I think that's a streamlining too far, to be honest. Yours is a noble attempt to address the issue, but not one I feel my nation can support, unfortunately.

I think that it could be argued that the belief in Evolution is a religious position, even if it is only in terms of denying that God exists. By it disproving the existance of God it becomes a religious belief. Did that make any sense?

I think that it could be argued that the belief in Evolution is a religious position, even if it is only in terms of denying that God exists. By it disproving the existance of God it becomes a religious belief. Did that make any sense?

In my experience, belief in God is pretty independent of belief in evolution.

In my experience, belief in God is pretty independent of belief in evolution.
OOC: apologies if I have this wrong, but I assume you're in the US. In the UK, perhaps three quarters of us believe in God or something similar. I'd guess that creationists account for less than a tenth of one percent of the population.

Evolutionary theory isn't really debated here - rightly or wrongly - and creationists just get laughed at, frankly.

I think that it could be argued that the belief in Evolution is a religious position, even if it is only in terms of denying that God exists. By it disproving the existance of God it becomes a religious belief. Did that make any sense?

Yes, I am inclined to agree. Some religions cannot be true if evolution did occur (because it would discredit their scripture, or similar). The Theory of evolution is still a theory, and the UN should not have the arrogance to treat it as guaranteed fact. In the same way that an individual must choose to accept a religion as being the truth, an individual must choose to accept evolutionary theory as being the truth. Classify it as a belief, and resolve not to bar teaching of a belief system!

Another thought. Why should a citizen be guaranteed to learn about evolutionary theory? Why not guarantee the right to learn about the heliocentric universe, the Laws of Motion, the Theory of Relativity? Why should evolution be set above any of those (much less controversial) theories?

OOC: apologies if I have this wrong, but I assume you're in the US. In the UK, perhaps three quarters of us believe in God or something similar. I'd guess that creationists account for less than a tenth of one percent of the population.

Evolutionary theory isn't really debated here - rightly or wrongly - and creationists just get laughed at, frankly.

Well, that's what I mean: the variables are independent of each other. The trend of people believing in God doesn't seem to have a statistically strong relationship with the trend of disbelief in evolution. I mean, yeah, I bet most people that don't believe in evolution do so for religious reasons, but I think most people who are religious don't necessarily disbelieve evolution. Argh, I'm having trouble saying this clearly. Here:


In my experience:

God =/= No evolution

That's what I mean to say.

Oh... I see. I completely misunderstood you first time around!

Krioval echoes our esteemed colleague from _Myopia_. Expand this to cover all scientific theory generally accepted by experts and Krioval will (barring any horribly monstrous wording) approve it.

I have thought a bit about this good suggestion. However no other scientific theory has received so much acceptance scientifically but still garners considerable antipathy from sociopolitical and religious sectors. For example few laypersons dispute the theory of gravity, relativity, etc because it does not have direct implications for the place of humans in nature. The Big Bang theory gets some heat because it is theory of origins. However, it is rare to hear that the study of the big bang has been prohibited in public schools. If there is a specific problem regarding a state's suppression of the theory of the Big Bang I would endorse a specific proposal endorsing and fostering the study of the Big Bang. I am less interested in making a proposal too broad because then it can be: (a) misinterpreted; and (b) used for malevolent purposes by others.

The proposal needs you vote. Time is ticking...

Right to Learn about Evolution
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Saint Lucius Malfoy

Description: REGRETTING the threat to human rights which is the suppression of learning about evolutionary theory;

AWARE that some of causes of this suppression are political and/or religious based fears that evolution is an alternative to belief in a deity;

NOTING that many religions do not feel threatened by evolutionary theory. Furthermore it is unlikely that God is so malevolent as to plant evidence that our planet is aged 3.5 billion years;

EMPHASIZING the United Nations must collectively discourage the suppression of this grand unifying theme called evolutionary theory. Teachers of the idea should also be free from imprisonment and persecution.

CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include evolutionary theory in the classroom because a lack of interest by teachers and/or students. This will not be interpreted by the UN as evidence of suppression. Suppression is defined as written laws preventing the teaching of evolutionary theory or punishing those who teach it.

MANDATES that the UN eject member states that persist to physically imprison / punish teachers or students for engaging in evolutionary studies. Nations that suppress the teaching of evolution will be discouraged from doing so but will not be ejected for minor offenses againt the resolution.

REITERATES the need for member nations to allow students to learn about evolutionary theory;

ASKS member nations work with world leaders to prevent the suppression of evolutionary theory in the classroom.



Approvals: 60 (Jethrostan, Stir It Up, Yo La Tengo Sells Out, Olworth, Rotten bacon, Northern Lycabettus, Brausi-mausi, Pilantras, Republic of Freedonia, Deathination, Kozolonia, THEM Central, Fatus Maximus, Windleheim, The Shadow-Kai, Vermak Incang, Black Reading, Ddraigbroydd, Fenure, Even Greater Zognor, Iznogoud, Cigaro, Nevscrow, Our Lord Spenser, Mysteriously, Dice Rolling, Nenuial, Xarvinia-Wurtemburg, Kyott, All that glows, Gansine, Etnpm, Jesus-landia, Zypherious, Catronia Marks, Baudrillard, Benea, Son0ma, Svenstenberg, The Cariebbean, Gods escape from Bush, Snufflelufflegus Land, Zoanthropia, Master Tom, Bloodmoon-Hyperion, Badiyat ash Sham, Rising Dreams, Ermarian, Calamor, Jangoberians, Of Ryan, Yissing Scalies, Suburbian Demise, Rickpolis, Dubya Republic, Homietwin, Janistania, Spaz Land, Aughra, Jimbob the Jingoistic)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 89 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Apr 25 2005

careful with the spamming - you brought your other previous topic back to the top, and then create a new topic on the same subject.

Not everyone will appreciate your intentions. :)

Another thought. Why should a citizen be guaranteed to learn about evolutionary theory? Why not guarantee the right to learn about the heliocentric universe, the Laws of Motion, the Theory of Relativity? Why should evolution be set above any of those (much less controversial) theories?

Because the theory of evolution is controversial and has direct links to how we view the natural world, consumption, humans, species extinction, the antibiotic prevention of evolving viruses / virulent bacteria etc. Nothing in biology makes sense without the theory of evolution. I would further argue that nothing in politics, economics, and the social sciences makes sense without an evolutionary perspective. Students need a firm foundation in this cornerstone theory of the life sciences to become productive, critically-minded citizens in an increasingly complex world.

careful with the spamming - you brought your other previous topic back to the top, and then create a new topic on the same subject.

Not everyone will appreciate your intentions. :)

How else will delegates be made aware of the proposal without spamming their telegram in boxes? It seems that spamming (which may be a over-statement in this case because I am not selling anything per se). It is tricky issue (I think there is a topic in another thread on telegram campaigns - interested in hearing how UN members feel about this form of spamming). It would be much easier if delegates were somehow required / encouraged to read submitted proposals. Albeit some proposals are quite poorly written. Maybe I am missing another pathway or forum for the promotion of proposals to UN members?

In that case I must argue that religion be mandatory in all schools, you cannot force people to learn evolution theory as it 'explaines everything' without making it the same for religion.

Oh wait damn, religion is already protect and we are just giving people the right to learn about evolution.

Need a new resolution like the freedom of information act etc

The Constitutional Republic considers this a matter already protected under the Universal Bill of Rights and other matters in regards to Religious Freedom. And as such will not be approving of this legislation, nor casting an operative vote for or against should the proposal make it to vote.

Since evolutionary thought in connected with Secular Humanism, and Naturalism (both of which are classified as religious institutions in the Republic) evolutionary theory is also considered religious in exercize, and thus applicable to all laws in regards to religious freedoms. Anthropomorphic considerations are part of the varying theological schools of this nation-state and thus only applicable to studies within them, and we will disallow discussion of this subject in open public school-systems in line with the preventative aspects of forcing particular religious ideologies upon our populace, in any matter what-so-ever.

How else will delegates be made aware of the proposal without spamming their telegram in boxes?I think the gnomes get less irate about telegramming than they do about multiple topics in here.It is tricky issue (I think there is a topic in another thread on telegram campaigns - interested in hearing how UN members feel about this form of spamming).Yup, well if you are serious about getting a proposal passed, you do have to really telegram. It's not ideal, but ther you go. It would be much easier if delegates were somehow required / encouraged to read submitted proposals. Most good ones do, but some are useless.....Albeit some proposals are quite poorly written. Maybe I am missing another pathway or forum for the promotion of proposals to UN members?Sadly not. However, most delegates don't even read here, so it's not the best place to advertise. Sadly. But it is a good place to get your proposal improved, and if it reaches quorum, it's a good place to debate the full vote.

The Constitutional Republic considers this a matter already protected under the Universal Bill of Rights and other matters in regards to Religious Freedom. And as such will not be approving of this legislation, nor casting an operative vote for or against should the proposal make it to vote.

Since evolutionary thought in connected with Secular Humanism, and Naturalism (both of which are classified as religious institutions in the Republic) evolutionary theory is also considered religious in exercize, and thus applicable to all laws in regards to religious freedoms. Anthropomorphic considerations are part of the varying theological schools of this nation-state and thus only applicable to studies within them, and we will disallow discussion of this subject in open public school-systems in line with the preventative aspects of forcing particular religious ideologies upon our populace, in any matter what-so-ever.

Evolutionary theory cannot be religious as you claim because its worth is measured on how well it predicts outcomes independently verfied by a scientific method.
Any good theory must have predictions and be testable.

Why would you want religion to be measured in the same manner unless you are someone anti-religion? Few people would want their personal spiritual beliefs to be scrutinized and measured in such a fashion. I think if you truly feel that religions are a good scientific theory then try using them to predict observations such as why a particular bacteria changes in response to the presence of an antibiotic. I do not think religions were designed to ask such questions but evolutionary theory was designed to be scientific (i.e., predictive and testable) theory of the natural world.

Why do you feel that evolution requires special protection from the UN? Why don't you draft "Right to Learn Heliocentrism" or "Right to Learn Quantum Theory"?

And why do you feel it necessary to have 3 threads all on the same topic? And why did you ignore the feedback posted on the other threads?

I will not support this paranoid resolution.

Evolutionary theory cannot be religious as you claim because its worth is measured on how well it predicts outcomes independently verfied by a scientific method.
Any good theory must have predictions and be testable.


Evolutionary theory is religious as it hinged upon a greater theological view, and suppliment in Secular Naturalism and Secular Humanism; and is thus an aspect of those studies, and is treated on equal ground with all others in matters of its anthropomorphic aspects and operations.


Why would you want religion to be measured in the same manner unless you are someone anti-religion? Few people would want their personal spiritual beliefs to be scrutinized and measured in such a fashion.

Now you put words in my mouth.... As such, I will not even grace your pig-headishness with a response.


I think if you truly feel that religions are a good scientific theory then try using them to predict observations such as why a particular bacteria changes in response to the presence of an antibiotic.

Non-issue... Neither Secularism nor Spiritualism is on trial here, and the Republic has made its position on this issue concrete.


I do not think religions were designed to ask such questions but evolutionary theory was designed to be scientific (i.e., predictive and testable) theory of the natural world.

Evolutionary theory has not been designed as "scientific" since it relies on non-testable criteria. It is a "soft-science" much like Theology and Philosophy, and thus is left to its proper norms as a "world-view" subjectmatter.

As stated, the Republic will not support your proposal, nor will it vote in affirmation or denial of it should it reach vote. Since it is a non-issue and does nothing towards anything in particular.

We support religious liberties and freedoms, and wish to make all such criteria applicable to all religious world-views, including secular humanism and naturalism, so as to be non-discriminitory upon our populace and their own personal beliefs.

Regardless of majority consensus, religion is not legislated by this government.

Evolutionary theory has not been designed as "scientific" since it relies on non-testable criteria. It is a "soft-science" much like Theology and Philosophy, and thus is left to its proper norms as a "world-view" subjectmatter.

Well this is truly nonsense. How is the study of evolution any less of a science compared to other areas? Evolutionary theory has helped explain and predict the spread of more virulent (i.e., harmful) infectious diseases. Furthermore, it helps explain and predict why one sex is choosier with regards to mating than the other. Not to mention without evolutionary genetics the whole subject of animal and plant breeding would make little sense. Surely your nation has infectious diseases, breeds animals and plants and has animals that choose their mates. Evolutionary studies helps make sense of these phenomenon and could also assist medicine at engineering better antibiotics to curb the spread of disease. Trying to minimize the importance of evolutionary theory will not make the proposal go away.

I believe Tekania's point is that, where a theory such as Newton's theory of gravity can be used to make predictions which, if they turn out to be wrong, are evidence of its falsity, Darwinian evolutionary theory cannot be tested in the same way. Whilst it is possible to predict and test the evolution of organisms in the future, it is impossible to test evolution as a theory of the current state of life in the same way without a time machine.

_Myopia_ still believes it would be far more worthwhile to make a more general protection of science, rather than singling out one theory.

Well this is truly nonsense. How is the study of evolution any less of a science compared to other areas? Evolutionary theory has helped explain and predict the spread of more virulent (i.e., harmful) infectious diseases. Furthermore, it helps explain and predict why one sex is choosier with regards to mating than the other. Not to mention without evolutionary genetics the whole subject of animal and plant breeding would make little sense. Surely your nation has infectious diseases, breeds animals and plants and has animals that choose their mates. Evolutionary studies helps make sense of these phenomenon and could also assist medicine at engineering better antibiotics to curb the spread of disease. Trying to minimize the importance of evolutionary theory will not make the proposal go away.

Non-issue what my nation has or does not have...

It is the purpose of this Republic to protect the individual rights of her citizens, and nothing more... All else is a non-issue.

I have thought a bit about this good suggestion. However no other scientific theory has received so much acceptance scientifically but still garners considerable antipathy from sociopolitical and religious sectors. For example few laypersons dispute the theory of gravity, relativity, etc because it does not have direct implications for the place of humans in nature. The Big Bang theory gets some heat because it is theory of origins. However, it is rare to hear that the study of the big bang has been prohibited in public schools. If there is a specific problem regarding a state's suppression of the theory of the Big Bang I would endorse a specific proposal endorsing and fostering the study of the Big Bang. I am less interested in making a proposal too broad because then it can be: (a) misinterpreted; and (b) used for malevolent purposes by others.

This is not reality. Pick a scientific theory, and someone can probably show you a nationstate that suppresses it.

Generalising this would make your proposal less controversial, fairer, and more rational.

By the way - to your comments on the accepted theory of gravity, in fact, people should be rejecting the Newtonian theory of gravity, as it has been superceded by Einstein's more accurate theory.

Why do you feel that evolution requires special protection from the UN? Why don't you draft "Right to Learn Heliocentrism" or "Right to Learn Quantum Theory"?
These theories are not under threat, therefore do not require special protection.

Evolutionary theory is religious as it hinged upon a greater theological view, and suppliment in Secular Naturalism and Secular Humanism
It is regarded as such in your nation, maybe. Not in ours, for the simple reason that, er, it is not religious.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I think that it could be argued that the belief in Evolution is a religious position, even if it is only in terms of denying that God exists. By it disproving the existance of God it becomes a religious belief. Did that make any sense?

What about the people who believe in both evolution AND God?

I've merged all the threads on the front page. Saint Lucius Malfoy, stop making new threads about this. You can edit your first post and put in the latest version. We don't need five or six threads wondering why nobody likes your proposal - just make one thread and try to improve your proposal in that one.


~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

What about the people who believe in both evolution AND God?

Damn you got me there. I would not say that the two things are mutually exclusive. However I would say that it is a common misconception that people think they are.

I will back a proposal that is universal. If it covers all information/theories/religions then I think it would be fair. Freedom of information is an important part of avoiding ignorance and misunderstanding.

I will back a proposal that is universal. If it covers all information/theories/religions then I think it would be fair. Freedom of information is an important part of avoiding ignorance and misunderstanding.

Yes, I agree.

I believe Tekania's point is that, where a theory such as Newton's theory of gravity can be used to make predictions which, if they turn out to be wrong, are evidence of its falsity, Darwinian evolutionary theory cannot be tested in the same way. Whilst it is possible to predict and test the evolution of organisms in the future, it is impossible to test evolution as a theory of the current state of life in the same way without a time machine.

_Myopia_ still believes it would be far more worthwhile to make a more general protection of science, rather than singling out one theory.

I respectfully disagree. The differences between a theory
of gravity and a theory of evolution is that the latter is dealing with a different level of analysis (i.e., biological organisms rather than physical laws). The idea that evolution is untestable is a myth. The primary mechanism of evolutionary change (i.e., natural selection) can be studied using simulations, laboratory experimental organisms, and indirectly in cases of artificial selection. I am just mentioning a few examples of how to study selection.

I have heard the idea before that if we were not there how can we ever know what happened. It is unsound considering the rapid diversification of finch beaks, plant speciation, and antibacterial resistance over short periods of observable time.

Further the study of evolution is like investigating an unsolved crime - it is a detective story. In both cases there are ways of falsifying whether or not something occurred in the past. In the case of evolution we can now determine whether natural selection operated in the past (as opposed to random factors) by looking at the present day genome which is a historical document of past change.

I've merged all the threads on the front page. Saint Lucius Malfoy, stop making new threads about this. You can edit your first post and put in the latest version. We don't need five or six threads wondering why nobody likes your proposal - just make one thread and try to improve your proposal in that one.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Thank you for the information and merging the threads.

Honorable Members and Delegates of the United Nations,

Thank you for your advice, criticism and support for the the proposal on the Right to Learn about Evolution. The proposal has received enough votes to reach a Quorum.

We are very interested in the debate that will follow.

pax vobiscum - peace be with you

Dr. Hamilton Trivers
Chair, Science Education Committee
Saint Lucius Malfoy

Right to Learn about Evolution
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Saint Lucius Malfoy

Description: REGRETTING the threat to human rights which is the suppression of learning about evolutionary theory;

AWARE that some of causes of this suppression are political and/or religious based fears that evolution is an alternative to belief in a deity;

NOTING that many religions do not feel threatened by evolutionary theory. Furthermore it is unlikely that God is so malevolent as to plant evidence that our planet is aged 3.5 billion years;

EMPHASIZING the United Nations must collectively discourage the suppression of this grand unifying theme called evolutionary theory. Teachers of the idea should also be free from imprisonment and persecution.

CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include evolutionary theory in the classroom because a lack of interest by teachers and/or students. This will not be interpreted by the UN as evidence of suppression. Suppression is defined as written laws preventing the teaching of evolutionary theory or punishing those who teach it.

MANDATES that the UN eject member states that persist to physically imprison / punish teachers or students for engaging in evolutionary studies. Nations that suppress the teaching of evolution will be discouraged from doing so but will not be ejected for minor offenses againt the resolution.

REITERATES the need for member nations to allow students to learn about evolutionary theory;

ASKS member nations work with world leaders to prevent the suppression of evolutionary theory in the classroom.

Approvals: 151 (Jethrostan, Stir It Up, Yo La Tengo Sells Out, Olworth, Rotten bacon, Northern Lycabettus, Brausi-mausi, Pilantras, Republic of Freedonia, Deathination, Kozolonia, THEM Central, Fatus Maximus, Windleheim, The Shadow-Kai, Vermak Incang, Black Reading, Ddraigbroydd, Fenure, Even Greater Zognor, Iznogoud, Cigaro, Nevscrow, Our Lord Spenser, Mysteriously, Dice Rolling, Nenuial, Xarvinia-Wurtemburg, Kyott, All that glows, Gansine, Etnpm, Jesus-landia, Zypherious, Catronia Marks, Baudrillard, Benea, Son0ma, Svenstenberg, The Cariebbean, Gods escape from Bush, Snufflelufflegus Land, Zoanthropia, Master Tom, Bloodmoon-Hyperion, Badiyat ash Sham, Rising Dreams, Ermarian, Calamor, Jangoberians, Of Ryan, Yissing Scalies, Suburbian Demise, Rickpolis, Dubya Republic, Homietwin, Janistania, Spaz Land, Aughra, Jimbob the Jingoistic, Connivence, Lunaria Mirandia, Super Shiny Happy PPL, Tiber City, Erehwon Forest, Darker Autumn, Hebrulea, Eldpollard, Lucania Prime, Punkerz, US Liberals, Kyndcat, Foil Shango, The Herdstone, New Secundus, Jacordia, Rpg-ness, Bangledesh, Maedko, Corinos, Shanagolia, Felysial, Feight, Robin Lori and DJ, Cordona, Ancients Tomatoes, Secondzflat, Bernardi, Weserkyn, Great Morganton, Dizziness, Saint Les, Flormontagon, Silversong, Proletarian Continents, Edensca, Calantos, Kemdoph, Ness Snorlaxia, John Paul III, Nickmasykstan, Homieville, Jimoria, Zimbabwestan, Simpatia, Amerieurostralia, Re-National Socialists, Lost Valley, The Land of Sigmar, FRIENDS OF THE DEVIL, Puglisidom, The SASF, Tatarica, The Meat Brigade, Cowschickens, Lunatic Retard Robots, Cornflake Gremlins, Minor Sealand, CNYSkinFan, Sorrow Crown, Chronosburg, Debrawn, Gremlinape, Karaghord, Finbergia, Rosssophie, Fenrig, The Fro Royal Family, Cannuckistan, Monadnock, Purpleation, Center County, Carlbard, New-Delaware, Tergaza, Bhuddists, YGSM, Trowk, Jaghur, Guerrero Tierra, Jamesburgh, Rith Essa, Nosedondekistan, Julio Trigman, LouFerringoland, Erroneous Errol Island, East Lithuania, G-Rumps, Mikaeli, Cockeysville, United Smufs)
Nations may not be ejected from the United Nations for any reason other than violations of NationStates rules such as, for example, submitting bad proposals.

This proposal has been deleted.

Saint Lucius Malfoy: Official Warning - Game Mechanics violation. Read the UN proposal rules before submitting another proposal.

To all of those who endorsed this resolution: While endorsing a bad resolution will not get you ejected from the UN, you should review the UN proposal rules before endorsing anything else.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Nations may not be ejected from the United Nations for any reason other than violations of NationStates rules such as, for example, submitting bad proposals.

This proposal has been deleted.

Saint Lucius Malfoy: Official Warning - Game Mechanics violation. Read the UN proposal rules before submitting another proposal.

To all of those who endorsed this resolution: While endorsing a bad resolution will not get you ejected from the UN, you should review the UN proposal rules before endorsing anything else.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Well that is disappointing. As a new member to the site I read the following FAQ which led to some confusion when I submitted my original proposal:

"What's the United Nations?

The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations...As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions."

Also in the Forum on Submitting UN Proposals it was written:

"2. Game Mechanics Proposal
clearly the UN can infringe on whatever it wants because the option to make such proposals exists."

Granted after reading different postings in more detail I was made aware of my mistake post-submission. In my defense I did not intend to alter game mechanics. Simply removing the sentence would be sufficient. I understand why this cannot be done by moderators after voting has already begun.

Submit the amended proposal and telegram the delegates who approved it the first time. If they supported it initially, they should support it again.

Submit the amended proposal and telegram the delegates who approved it the first time. If they supported it initially, they should support it again.

Thanks for the advice. Very kind of you.

Thanks for the advice. Very kind of you.

Of course. Sometimes the most obvious solution evades us all. That said, I am still ambivalent about the content and focus of this proposal, so I'm not sure I can approve it, even in its amended state. We'll see what happens, I suppose.

My sympathies, St Lucius. Good luck with the next attempt.

My sympathies, St Lucius. Good luck with the next attempt.

Thank you for your concern. It is my own fault. Should have read the UN rules much more carefully. However the rules for the proposals appear to be spread across the environment (i.e., forums) and can be vague at times (at least from the perspective of a new member). Although this may be because the rules change as violations change. It is like a coevolutionary arms race I suppose.

I would suggest posting it up in the forum in it's final form then for a few days before submitting it. People are always happy to point out errors.

My mistake - I overlooked the "ejecting from UN" clause. If this proposal is submitted again in compliance with the rules, I will definitely approve it again.

Same here.

I respectfully disagree. The differences between a theory
of gravity and a theory of evolution is that the latter is dealing with a different level of analysis (i.e., biological organisms rather than physical laws). The idea that evolution is untestable is a myth. The primary mechanism of evolutionary change (i.e., natural selection) can be studied using simulations, laboratory experimental organisms, and indirectly in cases of artificial selection. I am just mentioning a few examples of how to study selection.

I have heard the idea before that if we were not there how can we ever know what happened. It is unsound considering the rapid diversification of finch beaks, plant speciation, and antibacterial resistance over short periods of observable time.

Further the study of evolution is like investigating an unsolved crime - it is a detective story. In both cases there are ways of falsifying whether or not something occurred in the past. In the case of evolution we can now determine whether natural selection operated in the past (as opposed to random factors) by looking at the present day genome which is a historical document of past change.

I can formulate a testable biological theory like this: I hypothesise that selection pressures will cause evolution in a population of bacteria, producing bacteria better adapted to deal with that pressure. Therefore, I predict that the prevalence of different alleles in a bacterial population exposed to an antibiotic will change over generations so that the population in general becomes more resistant to the antibiotic. I can test this and show it to be true, which provides evidence for my theory, or show it to be incorrect, providing evidence against.

However, this is a testable theory about natural selection. We can show by experiment that natural and artificial selection produce microevolution now. However, we cannot devise an experiment to prove that the species of organism present today are the result of such selection, or that they are descended from organisms that appear, from the fossil record, to have lived in previous eras. Nor can we perform a test to verify that genetic similarities between species are due to their evolution from a common ancestor.

Whilst I am firmly of the opinion that Darwinian evolution is the best and by far the most likely explanation for the state of life today, and that it ought to be taught to children in schools as such, it is still important to recognise the difference between this type of theory and others.

I reiterate my point that singling out any particular branch of science for protection, especially one of this nature, is much less reasonable than offering a show of support to scientific progress and scientifically-derived views of the world in all scientific disciplines.

I reiterate my point that singling out any particular branch of science for protection, especially one of this nature, is much less reasonable than offering a show of support to scientific progress and scientifically-derived views of the world in all scientific disciplines.

Agreed.

The People's Republic will not support this proposal, because it is too specific and because it is an unnecessary meddling with national educational policy. Yes, we do teach evolution, but come on, it's a theory. This resolution treats it as if it is The Truth, which it isn't. That's why it's called a theory. It is the best explanation we have, but that doesn't mean a better theory can come up.

Yes, we do teach evolution, but come on, it's a theory. This resolution treats it as if it is The Truth, which it isn't. That's why it's called a theory. It is the best explanation we have, but that doesn't mean a better theory can come up.

In the first place, your argument doesn't have a great deal of substance here. You are apparently saying (to paraphrase) "It is a theory, because it is not the truth, and because it's not the truth, it's called a theory." Well, okay, but it's fairly obvious that "if it's a theory, then it's called a theory."

In the second place, the fact that it's not known to be the truth is not why it's called a "theory". It's called a theory because that's the scientific and mathematical name for a group of related beliefs about a specific topic of science or mathematics, supported by proof or by verified empirical evidence.

In the third place, scientists never feel that they have "The Truth". The best they can hope for (and the only thing they try for) is the simplest possible explanation that fits the observed facts. Better theories will undoubtedly come up; they have before, and I'm sure they will again. That should not keep scientists from accepting the theories they develop as the best currently possible approximation of "The Truth".

That said, the Principality of Petronea will not support this resolution because our government views it as redundant in light of existing UN resolutions.

In the third place, scientists never feel that they have "The Truth". The best they can hope for (and the only thing they try for) is the simplest possible explanation that fits the observed facts. Better theories will undoubtedly come up; they have before, and I'm sure they will again. That should not keep scientists from accepting the theories they develop as the best currently possible approximation of "The Truth".

Of course. But given the extra-tenuous nature of this particular theory (because certain parts of it are untestable - by which I mean you can't make predictions then perform an appropriate experiment without a time machine), why are we singling it out? Why not teach children the nature of scientific progress, which you summarised above, and protect their rights to learn any scientific theory developed and accepted like this?

...given the extra-tenuous nature of this particular theory (because certain parts of it are untestable - by which I mean you can't make predictions then perform an appropriate experiment without a time machine), why are we singling it out? Why not teach children the nature of scientific progress, which you summarised above, and protect their rights to learn any scientific theory developed and accepted like this?

Hear, hear. That's an excellent, elegant, and even-handed proposal. I will support that proposal, if you were to submit it.

Hear, hear. That's an excellent, elegant, and even-handed proposal. I will support that proposal, if you were to submit it.

Thanks - I'd love someone else to - I simply don't have the time to author and campaign on a proposal right now.

Of course. But given the extra-tenuous nature of this particular theory (because certain parts of it are untestable - by which I mean you can't make predictions then perform an appropriate experiment without a time machine), why are we singling it out? Why not teach children the nature of scientific progress, which you summarised above, and protect their rights to learn any scientific theory developed and accepted like this?

I might make an objection based on the fact that it is in fact possible to make predictions about (for example) what fossil evidence of life forms may be found, and then to attempt to discover fossil evidence to see whether it conforms to predictions. However, that's not really my main point of disagreement.

My real problem with this is that a resolution such as you suggest seems to be essentially defining science, and then defending the rights of children to be educated in science according to this definition. To my mind, this is getting dangerously close to defining a (segment of a) curriculum.

As I'm looking through the UN resolutions already passed, I notice that Resolution 55 establishes a UN Educational Committee. I wonder if a subject such as this should be presented to that Committee for discussion, thus keeping the question under the aegis of previously existing resolutions, rather than introducing a new one? While we're at it, I don't see any other sign of that Committee's existence. Where is it?

Of course. But given the extra-tenuous nature of this particular theory (because certain parts of it are untestable - by which I mean you can't make predictions then perform an appropriate experiment without a time machine), why are we singling it out? Why not teach children the nature of scientific progress, which you summarised above, and protect their rights to learn any scientific theory developed and accepted like this?

It is interesting how some Member Delegates wish to subordinate the study of evolutionary theory by using a straw man argument of "testability". You already agreed that hypotheses regarding natural selection (the main mechanism of evolutionary change) are testable in the sense they can be falsified. Your concern is with ancestral events and marcoevolution. Recent work in evolutionary developmental biology (combining developmental genetics with macroevolution evidence such as the fossil record) should make it clear that hypotheses about the past can be tested. HOX and PAX6 genes are good examples of this approach. The conserved nature of many genes suggests common ancestry and this conservation suggests that the genes in question must have performed vital functions in ancestral organisms. Scientists can now study the downstream consequences of these genes and infer their benefits and/or evolution in the past. However, evolutionary developmental biology is not primarily concerned with understanding natural selection in the past it also maps out developmental and phylogenetic constraints in a variety of organisms. The comparative method (comparing closely related genomes) is a fantastic strategy at studying and testing possible evolutionary pathways. This strategy used to study present day living organisms (some of which may have retained features resembling a common ancestor while others may have lost the features) is very effective. It is possible to find evidence that is not consistent with a particular evolutionary hypothesis regarding events in the past.

In the future some member states could also take tissue from fossilized animals and clone the genes to study how they operated in the past (i.e., bringing back extinct organisms). This is currently not being done, but the point is that as methods improve (or new methods for studying evolution are discovered) it will become increasingly harder for philosphers and/or naysayers to make strawman arguments regarding testability.

As I can see the two main reasons that evolutionary theory is different than some other scientific theories are (a) it deals with complex biological organisms rather than non-living matter and physical laws per se; (b) it is partially a historical investigation which introduces all sorts of problems in interpretation. However these issues should not be used to discourage the study of evolution. It is like saying "if it is hard to make inferences, let's not bother doing it".

It's quite interesting that you're going on about the theory of evolution, but you haven't made it clear why specifically this theory should be "protected", and not other theories (Big bang? Did Man come from sea or savannah? Freud?) or science in general.

Your point that the theory of evolution deals with complex biological processes and that it is partially a historical investigation are not convincing enough for singling this out. It's redundant, simple as that. The resolution "Scientific Freedom" might not be a fine example of a well-written proposal, it does ensure freedom for scientists to research a subject. That should be enough. If this is your thing, then I'd rather see you write a better "Scientific Freedom" resolution than waste your time on teaching about evolution.

Especially as your resolution does not stop nations from teaching that evolution theory is wrong. One can comply by teaching about it.

It is interesting how some Member Delegates wish to subordinate the study of evolutionary theory by using a straw man argument of "testability".

I'm all for the study of evolutionary theory. I would love for children across the UN to be taught in schools that Darwinian evolution was the best explanation we currently have for the state of life.

I am fed up of trying to convey the distinction that I wish to make between Darwinism and theories such as relativity. I will try this one more time.

That natural selection has the power to shape genetic attributes IS a theory, which can be tested and demonstrated.

The idea of evolution by natural selection, however, is more of an explanation that a theory. The line of thought goes something like this: "We know that selection pressures can shape genetic attributes. The fossil record appears to show long-term development of organisms, the genetic codes of modern species have certain features which are not incongruent with the possibility that they share common ancestors, and various geological records appear to show changing conditions, which would have resulted in selection pressures. Therefore, it does not seem unreasonable to assume that life did indeed evolve, and that natural selection was the mechanism by which this occurred." However, whilst we could observe evolution progressing now and in the future, and we could even check that future evolution results in features similar to those currently known and posited as evidence for past evolution (such as genetic similarities and a progressive fossil record), we could never prove that the evidence we have now for past evolution was not caused by coincidence or by some higher power that wished to deceive us (be it a deity, or perhaps some scientists performing an experiment on our planet).

Essentially, what I'm saying is that evolution is a valid piece of science, but it must not be taken as dogma, and if we are to truly spread full understanding of the nature of scientific progress, I think we need to distinguish between scientific theories which attempt to find more universal truths about the way things work, like natural selection and relativity, and scientific explanations, which use scientific theories in an attempt to find the most likely sequence of events which led to specific phenomena, such as evolution, and the idea that a comet killed the dinosaurs.

(a) it deals with complex biological organisms rather than non-living matter and physical laws per se;

This distinction is irrelevant. I can still make a fully testable scientific theory about biology - the idea that selection pressures shape genetic features of a population is a testable biological theory.

(b) it is partially a historical investigation which introduces all sorts of problems in interpretation. However these issues should not be used to discourage the study of evolution. It is like saying "if it is hard to make inferences, let's not bother doing it".

No - it's saying "if we have to make lots of inferences, and rely on assumptions seeming reasonable, let's just remember that when we consider the reliability of the explanation we produce".

We'd be in favour of teaching children scientific theories AND the scientific explanations derived using said theories, INCLUDING Darwinian evolution. We just believe that to single out this one scientific explanation above all other theories and explanations for the multitude of features of our universe reflects a certain undesirable fanaticism and dogmatism.

The resolution "Scientific Freedom" might not be a fine example of a well-written proposal, it does ensure freedom for scientists to research a subject. That should be enough.

Actually, "Scientific Freedom" does nothing at all. It just states that the world would be a better place if scientists had the freedom to research responsibly and peacefully.

We'd be in favour of teaching children scientific theories AND the scientific explanations derived using said theories, INCLUDING Darwinian evolution. We just believe that to single out this one scientific explanation above all other theories and explanations for the multitude of features of our universe reflects a certain undesirable fanaticism and dogmatism.

I am in agreement with some of your assessments in your previous posts and I think we simply envision scientific uncertainty and its ramifications differently. I am a pluralist and I enjoy the debate.

I envision good theory as one that can generate a wide variety of predictions that can be tested (I feel evolutionary theory does a very good job considering the complexity of biological organisms). You feel that there is something necessarily post-hoc about evolutionary theory that means it is less of a theory but rather a way of organizing and explaining observations. Once again I am in agreement with some of your assessments of evolutionary theory but others I think you are emphasizing issues that detract from the point of the proposal.

The point of the proposal is to secure the freedom to learn about evolutionary theory regardless of the laws within a nation. It allows for a science teacher to teach evolutionary theory without the concern that they will be punished. Some posts have asked "why single out evolutionary theory in particular?". It is not dogma or fanaticism but reason, necessisity and morality which motivates the proposal. The study of evolution has been banned and teachers have been placed on trial throughout history. Other resolutions do not fully protect the learning of evolutionary theory which (once again) is currently (and has been in the past) threatened by political and societal whimsey. Other scientific theories / explanations as important as evolutionary theory are rarely under societal attack to the same degree.

A general blanket proposal protecting all scientific theories seems over-arching. Some scientific theories have little or no impact on how people view the themselves and do not require protection because no nation would ever consider punishing teachers for discussing it. By the way simply debating the utility of evolutionary theory is a good thing but banning it is a violation of human rights.

I think the issue here, is that the majority see no need for singling out this particular theory for specified protections that could not also be provided to others.

The other issue, is the procedure by which it is handled... And really deals unrealistically with the world in general, or how individual state school systems, or lack thereof operate.

What would the Constitutional Republic of Tekania seek to do if a private educational institution brought civil charges against a teacher in violation of contract for teaching this theory? If we act towards this resolution, we have to violate the UBR... If we act in accordance with the UBR, we have to violate this one... That is not a scenario I want to deal with. Our courts would be forced, by UN resolutions, to violate UN resolutions...

The second issue, is that the general curriculum is handled, in public schools, by school boards... And this gives precedent and license to teachers to skew established curriculum... This once again can lead to contract violations, and thus legal procedings which can be construed in violation...

Finally, I do not see how this resolution is in any way a "Human rights" issue, or even "general morality" in any capacity.... In the capacity of the Public Schools of member-states, curriculum is a determination of the people, that is, through their elective or appointive educational boards; and the teachers, being servants of the people should not be granted rights in their capacity as such as servants, passed that which the generallity of the populace grants them in such capacity.. This hands complete and total curriculum control to educators (and thus is not "Right To Learn Evolutionary Theory") themselves, as opposed to the democratic determination of the populace, with whom they are making the choice in education of their children...

Now Tekania is a very democratic state.... And the people enjoy much freedoms in their personal lives... What are the chances of my state wanting to be in an organization that would remove their democratic freedoms in the presence of a government who over-rules the populace in favor of her servants? Regardless of how this is chopped, it vies Science against Religion, and seeks violation of the religious liberties of the people in general... This Republic spent much time seeking ballance in our view points between our capacities as persons enjoying liberty of belief, and that of public servants whose job is to serve the beliefs of the people, and not our own... This resolution also creates self-serving public servants... That is, people who are no longer bound by their capacity as servants to the people, but may use their positions of servanthood, without resource by the people, to seek their own personal beliefs, and apply them upon the people, and possibly against the wishes of the people...

At this point I have to question the ethical capacity of the author of this resolution... He too is a public servant, and the question must be pressed upon him, is that why he would place his personnal ideals over those who would serve in his capacity... If I were an educator... a public servant, a servant of the people, should I be free from prosecution by the people for teaching things not in accordance with my job as a servant, made in determination of the people?

There have been times where I raised my personnal beleifs, even in my public duties, but have had to post-fix it with how-evers... Because my personnal beliefs as a spiritual being, do not line up with my personal duty as a public servant... And it is the servants duty which must take precedence when operating in that capacity over my personal convictions.

It has been my general observation of this body, that the majority place their personal convictions over their positional responsibilities... And it seems like this direction is headed towards where personal convictions of public servants are granted protections from the people to whom they serve.... This is a dangerous direction to head... It is destructive to democracy and freedom... It ends the capacity of the government to serve the people, and provides government the license to put their own beliefs over that of the people they serve...

At that, I can say, regardless of the intents... I cannot, nor ever will, support a Proposal like this...

Barring the actual proposal being extremely different from what's posted on this thread, I see nothing compelling evolution to be taught. Instead, what I see is that this resolution establishes a precedent specifically for evolution (but potentially expandable to all scientific theory) allowing it if there is desire to teach or learn it. This means that a science teacher can't be told to avoid the subject because a majority (but not all) oppose it. While I would prefer that the resolution be more general, I see this as a good way to divorce scientific fact from theological speculation, and I say this despite having a strong background in faith.

Director Varik Dekker
Science and Industry
Armed Republic of Krioval

Barring the actual proposal being extremely different from what's posted on this thread, I see nothing compelling evolution to be taught. Instead, what I see is that this resolution establishes a precedent specifically for evolution (but potentially expandable to all scientific theory) allowing it if there is desire to teach or learn it. This means that a science teacher can't be told to avoid the subject because a majority (but not all) oppose it. While I would prefer that the resolution be more general, I see this as a good way to divorce scientific fact from theological speculation, and I say this despite having a strong background in faith.

Director Varik Dekker
Science and Industry
Armed Republic of Krioval

I understand that... But at the same time, I see no reason to provide license towards teachers specific rights in their capacity as servants... The simple fact is, a teacher, in their capacity as a teacher, in service to the people, has no rights as servants... And exercize of those rights (which this allows) violates the rights of the people... It's a dangerous precedent to allow license to servants of the people, to counteract the people. And a license to ignore their duties as said servants of the people.

As far as I am concerned... When operating in specific capcity as a educational servant, teachers do not have any rights as towards religion, speech, or the like... outside of that capacity they enjoy those rights... But once in position of servantude in their public service capacity, they do not... They are no longer "people" but rather "government"...

I suppose your objections are more basic than I originally had thought. Also, I strongly doubt our two views can easily be reconciled. From my perspective, the UN already places a good deal of restriction on what government officials and employees can and cannot do. Ignoring for the moment the prevalence of private schools in many UN member states, educators should be basing their work from fact and only fact. Kriovalian teachers scrupulously avoid religious themes except at holidays (and then we're pretty pluralistic) or in social studies and history classes, and even then, the material is extremely objective in presentation. My view is that public service sometimes means being allowed to buck popular opinion every now and then when there is a strong justification for such an act. In a nation where civilian, military, religious, and business leaders can and often are the same people (Raijin, for example, is all four), Krioval has become adept at avoiding or at least identifying conflicts of interest. Ultimately, blunt honesty has been a strong ally in Kriovalian exchange of critical information.

I suppose your objections are more basic than I originally had thought. Also, I strongly doubt our two views can easily be reconciled. From my perspective, the UN already places a good deal of restriction on what government officials and employees can and cannot do. Ignoring for the moment the prevalence of private schools in many UN member states, educators should be basing their work from fact and only fact. Kriovalian teachers scrupulously avoid religious themes except at holidays (and then we're pretty pluralistic) or in social studies and history classes, and even then, the material is extremely objective in presentation. My view is that public service sometimes means being allowed to buck popular opinion every now and then when there is a strong justification for such an act. In a nation where civilian, military, religious, and business leaders can and often are the same people (Raijin, for example, is all four), Krioval has become adept at avoiding or at least identifying conflicts of interest. Ultimately, blunt honesty has been a strong ally in Kriovalian exchange of critical information.

Agreed in some part... There are localities where evolution is not taught by consensus of the populace... And while we will remove themes objectionable to the populace, we do not instill "beliefs" into the school system outside of that. This of course dealing with state supported education. In the realm of privitised education, we do not place any definitive criteria upon them, except basic apptitude in subject, and they are not liable to "religious doctrine" restrictions we place upon the public education system.

For the most part evolutionary studies have remained confined into the upper limits of certain higher-learning centers and colleges in this Republic. There is little need for evolutionary studies at lower levels of the system, since it really plays no part in the criteria for the students basic studies... In upper levels it plays much more a part of it. And again, the students in upper-level learning have both the legal and enviromental capacity to make choices towards their own ideals... Whereas, at lower levels it is rightly restricted to the basics of their parents, given the course studies exist in the criteria of basic requirements.

The problem I have, is this Proposal given "broad" license to the educators, and discounts much of the democratic principles of a public education (involving the decisions of the parents)... That is, the Republic, for instance would have no control over a teacher shirking their duties towards basic requirements, when they try to place evolutionary studies into the coursework of primary school at said expense...

The simple fact is, educators should not be provided this license... The proposal is way too broad for my tastes, in both its primary purpose, and how it carries this purpose out... The proposal would have to provide much more restrictive power...

Another problem is its title... "Right to Learn..."... That is really not what it is stating... It's providing teachers the right to teach the theory of evolution, even if it is against the provided curriculum... Thus there is no "right of learning" since the children could be forced, against both theirs and their parents will into the topic... The only possible restriction it gives is "science teachers"... of course "Science" is a broad topic of study, and covers many fields... I might have personal problems with a "Computer Science" teacher, usurping the curriculum to teach "the theory of evolution", or a "Physical Sciences" teacher, usurping the curriculum for the same... It's giving too much leeway to the teachers themselves, at the expense of their own coursework, their responsibilities as public servants, and the decisions of the democratically appointed school board (who makes the curriculum determinations by the populous)...

The simple fact is, I cannot let my hands be tied, as a servant of the people, from taking action against a teacher exercizing this "right to teach the theory of evolution" to his A.P. Computer Science class... Because, if this were to occur, I would not be able to do anything to restrict such...

Sorry to the author... But he will have to take a fine scalpel to this issue, before I could support his proposal on it.

This will be live sometime on May 4 2005
Right to Learn about Evolution

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Saint Lucius Malfoy

Description: REGRETTING the threat to human rights which is the suppression of learning about evolutionary theory;

AWARE that some of causes of this suppression are political and/or religious based fears that evolution is an alternative to belief in a deity;

NOTING that many religions do not feel threatened by evolutionary theory. Furthermore it is unlikely that God is so malevolent as to plant evidence that our planet is aged 3.5 billion years;

EMPHASIZING the United Nations must collectively discourage the suppression of this grand unifying theme called evolutionary theory. Teachers of the idea should also be free from imprisonment and persecution.

CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include evolutionary theory in the classroom because a lack of interest by teachers and/or students. This will not be interpreted by the UN as evidence of suppression. Suppression is defined as written laws preventing the teaching of evolutionary theory or punishing those who teach it.

MANDATES a strong symbolical disapproval against any member state that persists to physically imprison / punish teachers or students for engaging in evolutionary studies.

REITERATES the need for member nations to allow students to learn about evolutionary theory;

ASKS member nations work with world leaders to prevent the suppression of evolutionary theory in the classroom.

Approvals: 148 (Hebrulea, Fishy19, Republic of Freedonia, Laueria, Windleheim, Gansine, Krioval, Chunkylungbutter, Olworth, Yelda, The Shadow-Kai, Baudrillard, Black Reading, Ancients Tomatoes, Aminal, Quiltlifter, Flangleland, Stoned Americans, The Great Bud, Fairbanks North Star, Jacordia, Catronia Marks, Minor Sealand, Zoanthropia, The Land of Sinai, Hitler XXVI, Homietwin, Iznogoud, North Central America, Even Greater Zognor, UNNH, Land Air and Sea, Sorrow Crown, Etnpm, LouFerringoland, Baribeau, Mythila, Juggalando, Drozariea, Snufflelufflegus Land, THEM Central, Schmegegi, Ermarian, Ateelatay, Tsel, White Souls, US Liberals, Saorstat, Rosssophie, Sagus, North Monaghan, Reichtang, The Land of Sigmar, Pilantras, Trowk, Whitekong, Czardas, Osomer, Jonezistan, Venerable libertarians, Wegason, Democracian, Amerieurostralia, CNYSkinFan, Missicwoki, Widespread Copulation, Kewkania, Wolfish, The Two Martini Lunch, Geekopolous, Strogg, Rad1101, Dizziness, Xarvinia-Wurtemburg, Hoo-Doo, Ashoon, Saint Les, Floating Kumquats, Meshuggeners, Ummat-Ul-Islam, BLACKGRUE, Calamor, The Royal Storms, Protonland, Edolia, Beer-drinking, Caseylvania, Bastardstein, Askalaria, Docile Ducks, Lombary-Genoa, Killa Kev, Svenstenberg, Lenistopia, Oleria, Sivaprasadistan, Chickenzrus, Our Lord Spenser, Da vatican, Benea, Fenor, Felysial, MiaFan, Paddyshire, Caligula the Insane, Alterina, The Shetlands, Klashonite, Trexia, Lunatic Retard Robots, Srok Khmer, Silversong, Mackawe, Atlantinas, Purpleation, Salf, Burlia, Wealthists, G-Rumps, Cockeysville, Jimoria, Ihatestan, Hundom, Poweraid, Pyro Kittens, Hessen Nassau, Bluemason, The Talisman, Lucania Prime, Something626, Yippie and Yay, Ubershizasianaxis, Trixsyn, Craterous, Finbergia, United Smufs, FRIENDS OF THE DEVIL, Master Tom, Medicile, Janistania, Green Forrest People, Lunaria Mirandia, Gloria in Excelsis Deo, Pongo-Pongo, Tigrip, Uberwald, OiOiOi MDP, Shydon)
Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

And on a bizarre side note:
39 minutes ago: The Holy Empire of Saint Lucius Malfoy was ejected from the UN for rule violations.
Note that this does not affect the legality of this proposal. You Approved it, you got it.

Vastiva offers free aspirin to any UN member... you're going to need it.

What happens if a proposal in queue drops below the needed threshold?

The Incorporated States of Dissonant Cognition is uncomfortable with some parts of this proposal. For instance, consider the following:

"NOTING that many religions do not feel threatened by evolutionary theory. Furthermore it is unlikely that God is so malevolent as to plant evidence that our planet is aged 3.5 billion years;"

U.N. proposals and resolutions are not the place to determine the specifics of religious canon, in this case the possible nature or actions of God. Such issues should be addressed by individual religious institutions, not by the institutions of law, local or international. In the interest of discouraging religious conflict, the U.N. should not involve itself in these issues.

Dissonant Cognition recognizes that it is not the intention of the proposal to force Member Nations to teach "evolutionary theory:"

"CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include evolutionary theory in the classroom because a lack of interest by teachers and/or students. This will not be interpreted by the UN as evidence of suppression"

But Dissonant Cognition believes that other language contained within the proposal can be interpreted as suggesting otherwise:

"REITERATES the need for member nations to allow students to learn about evolutionary theory;"

Some may interpret the "need for member nations to allow students to learn" a particular curriculum as the enforcement of a particular curriculum upon Member Nations. The exclusion of "evolutionary theory" from school curriculum need not rely on the use of imprisonment or persecution. But those Member Nations who exclude "evolutionary theory" from school curriculum in such a manner may still be viewed as violating the spirit of the proposal by denying students the ability to "learn about evolutionary theory" even if they do not employ imprisonment and persecution to do so.

Dissonant Cognition applauds the desire to end the suppression of ideas and education via imprisonment and persecution by governmental entities. Dissonant Cognition feels, however, that this purpose would be better served by a more generalized proposal/resolution that does not rely on any specific instance of educational policy. This way, religious issues, as mentioned at the beginning of this message, are avoided and decisions in regard to what school curriculum to teach remain only within the hands of individual Member Nations. Also, a more generalized proposal/resolution would allow more instances of educational oppression to be covered without the need to pass a proposal/resolution for every possible curriculum.

Thus, The Incorporated States of Dissonant Cognition encourages fellow Member Nations to vote "no" on "Right to Learn about Evolution."

What happens if a proposal in queue drops below the needed threshold?

It goes off the queue. It's happened before.

Fellow UN members,

Religious groups have no influence whatsoever on politics in the Republic of Yuunli. Our citizens are free to believe in deities, but the curricula of our schools do not encourage children to have such faith.

Basic knowledge about evolution theory is a part of the "education standards" in the field of biology. The provinces of Yuunli are required to teach at least what is written in those standards; everything else is up to them. This is to assure the comparability of school degrees across the country, and to give children some basic knowledge they need in life.

Commenting on the above resolution proposal:

"REGRETTING the threat to human rights which is the suppression of learning about evolutionary theory"
We do not consider learning about evolutionary theory a human right. It is simply knowledge we consider worth knowing, in the same way as we consider basic geometry worth knowing.

"AWARE that some of causes of this suppression are political and/or religious based fears that evolution is an alternative to belief in a deity"
Believing in deities is not something taught in our schools, as we believe religion is not a public issue.

"NOTING that many religions do not feel threatened by evolutionary theory. Furthermore it is unlikely that God is so malevolent as to plant evidence that our planet is aged 3.5 billion years"
The government of Yuunli does not care what religions are threatened by.

"EMPHASIZING the United Nations must collectively discourage the suppression of this grand unifying theme called evolutionary theory. Teachers of the idea should also be free from imprisonment and persecution."
The Free Citizens Party of Yuunli believes teachers should always be free from imprisonment and persecution, no matter what they teach.

"CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include evolutionary theory in the classroom because a lack of interest by teachers and/or students. This will not be interpreted by the UN as evidence of suppression. Suppression is defined as written laws preventing the teaching of evolutionary theory or punishing those who teach it."
We can agree with this point of view in principle.

"MANDATES a strong symbolical disapproval against any member state that persists to physically imprison / punish teachers or students for engaging in evolutionary studies."
Why the explicit mention of evolution? We do not understand the point in proposing a resolution for one single topic. Should geometry be compulsory, too? If it should not, what makes evolution more important?

"REITERATES the need for member nations to allow students to learn about evolutionary theory"
Is this reiteration necessary?

"ASKS member nations work with world leaders to prevent the suppression of evolutionary theory in the classroom."
The Republic of Yuunli does not approve of this resolution, for the above mentioned reasons.

Kizzy Renito (Free Citizens Party)
Councilor for Education
The Republic of Yuunli

All I have to say is that this proposal is way too narrow. Either support all scientific endeavors (including but not limited to evolution), or don't waste my time. Mandating free exchange of all ideas causes dangers in national security (weapons advancement, etc). This means a science proposal would need careful writing.

Mandating evolution as the only issue turns this into a religious discussion and loses the importance of the idea (unless this is simply taking a step towards removing religion from the UN).


Ilkland opposes this concept, regardless of how it is written.

The Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia will vote in favour of this resolution. We are frustrated at the pervading and pernicious influence of irrational faith-based thinking on education and childhood and see this as an effective statement of principle.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Most replies indicate reasoning and suggestion that didn't even apply in the proposal. The proposal doesn't promote forcing the evolutionary theory subject to its people. It would merely stops any legal action to someone who wants to teach it. So you’re still left with the individual decision whether you want to be taught or teach the subject. It protects all aspects of a decision. I for one promote this. I encourage others who disagree to re-read the proposal for what it states.
Have a great day.

UN Resolution:
Yet again the UN tries to deciede how to run our Nations...!!
If this continues, its a question IF the UN has a role to play in the future.

"Right to Learn about Evolution"
I some how agree that this should be the only logical thing to learn. BUT I respect the different religions way of living the lives and building the society...

I think we can all agree, that OUR way of doing things are the correct way... but wont our opponents also say this???

Freedom to choose whatever religion you want, and therefore freedom to accept or deny our version of "Evolution".

I have voted AGAINST the resolution, and will encourage You to do the same.

Enemark

The Armed Republic of Young Warriors is totaly aginst this. Wether or not it would force countries to teach evolution is beside the point. First we discourage people next we tell them what to think. This is a major problem. I belive that if this were going around the other way to teach Creaton that it would never have even gotten enough support to be voted apon. If people really wan't to know about Evolution they can get on the World Wide Web and do research at home here in the Armed Republic of Young Warriors. But we will not vote for a resolution to allow teachers to teach it nor will we allow are own teachers to teach it. Are wonderful Leader and King Eric Rutherford would like to issue the following statment.

"There is no way that the teaching of Evolution should be an issue here. They say they are not forcing us to do any thing yet just you wait. First wll come discouragement, then sanctions, than distrust and we all know distrust leads to WAR. It is the official policy of the Armed Repblic of Young Warriors to officaly ban any teaching of Evolution and should be noted any teachers cought teachin it during school hours will be delt with to are liking."

The Glorious People's Republic of Groot Gouda, serving as the UN Delegate for the International Democratic Union, would like to state the following:

Our position, expressed in the draft stage of this proposal, has not changed. We will urge our region to vote AGAINST. This is not because we disagree with the theory of evolution; on the contrary, there is probably not a single nation in our region who forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution.

However, we are yet to hear a good reason for supporting this resolution. We see no reason to single out a specific theory for protection. Rather, we would like to propose to the author to put his writing skills in a resolution protecting science in general.

We also note that this resolution can create a big gap between religious nations and non-religious nations. They will feel left out, once again, and attacked on their beliefs. And this while there is no real harm in people believing in a God who created the world in 7 days, and not in evolution. So why go against them? It's their right to believe whatever they want, is our opinion.

The author of this resolution has taken this into account, by leaving enormous gaps in the resolution. This means that the theory of evolution is not protected in any way. It may no longer be forbidden, but that does not stop teachers from being obliged to teach that the theory is wrong. With such loopholes, it is pointless to support this resolution.

If a nation agrees with our position, and has good ideas for a resolution that wil protect science (in a better way than the Scientific Freedom resolution), they are welcome to our region, where our team of experienced resolution writers will assist in creating a resolution that will no doubt be better than this one.

This is not an issue that transcend national borders and ergo not worthy of UN consideration.

Nations of the UN,

As one of the more powerful Delegates in the world I feel it is my right to give my opinion. The people of Bestiville...

REALISE that some nations have particular religions or beliefs that would consider the Theory of Evolution to be false or even slander upon their chosen deity

COMMENT that students of all backgrounds should have the right to look at beliefs other than their own

RECOGNISE that this issue will have many nations that strongly oppose it, because of religious beliefs

COMMENT that the UN has no right to enforce religious resolutions upon nations that don’t agree with them

DISMISS this resolution because of the cultural differences of nations in the UN

Thank you,

Emperor Besty the Majestic
Grand Supreme Ruler of Bestiville and UN Delegate to the people’s of Lancre

While the Resolution sounds okay in principle it is too narrow and focusus on one single "political" issue Evolution. A much better proposal would be to encourage discusstion and debate on all issues that various sects may find contraversial. the issue should be free honest and an open debate on all subjects and allow countries police power safeguard only in matters that it can be clearly shown that engagement of a spefic instance can cause great and immediate harm or danger to the nation. Unfortunately while this rule seem rather mild, inocuous and non threatining it will soon fall prey to the law on unintended consequences. True freedom always alows wide bearth and political pressure and honest debate in the marketplace of ideas is where this issue should remain. :headbang:

The Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia will vote in favour of this resolution. We are frustrated at the pervading and pernicious influence of irrational faith-based thinking on education and childhood and see this as an effective statement of principle.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

The Delegation for the Realm of Hibernia Mirrors Ecopoiea's sentiments. Faith bodies have through History held back the advancement of Mankind. If we do not protect these rights it would be not long before peoples are being missinformed regarding the earths shape and the orbit of the sun!

Lord Byron,
Delegation of the Realm of Hibernia.

After reading this entire thread ( I'll have 6 of those aspirin please Vastiva :D) and seeing the excellent points brought up by some of the other members I find I must agree with them and vote against this resolution. I just can't see why this needs to be an international issue and agree with others that it will cause a lot of un-necessary division between religious and non-religious nations.

Teachers at Clavertonian state schools are free to teach evolution - but only as part of the National Curriculum. Any teaching that goes beyond the curriculum must be on the teacher's own time, and correspondingly attendance is not compulsory.

This legislation is a piece of paranoid bilge that is not worthy of the UN's consideration. It doesn't enforce anything, it is far, far too narrow, it is bizzarely classified as 'Human Rights - Significant' (by what tortured logic did that come about?).

I shall start drafting a repeal, as the voting is going 4-1 at the moment.

Well thankyou for saying NO. I am glad to see that there are some votes against this issue. For a second I thought my country was the only one that realized this would let the UN step way over its boundaries. The UN has no right to influence the education of my nation in any way. I let my people learn about evolution its not that I'm against it. The problem is that this is a domestic issue. The government of a nation has the right to enforce its own rules. Just because people want to learn one thing does not meanit should be taught. People do have the right to choose, and if they choose that they want something a government does not offer then they can move. To sum up this is a domestic issue and the UN can't go around forcing nations to teach evolution just because some people want to learn it. And yes I know that countries don't have to teach if their citizens choose not to. The point is this isn't a UN issue, it should be decided by a country. And if you didn't realize there already is a basic human rights proposal, so don't worry people can't be tortured or killed if they want to learn evolution in a country that they can't.

As one of the more powerful Delegates in the world

At 18 endorsements? Even I am more powerfull than that!

This is pointless. The proposal as written isn't enforceable, I object on that alone. What's the good of a proposal if it doesn't do anything. If it was enforceable I object on the basis that it would be an afront to national soverignty. At what point to do we throw up our hands and just all become one nation?

The UN should be enacting proposals that have to do with interactions between nations, not things that affect individual nations internally.

I urge you, vote no on this proposal. Leave religion out of it. A vote against is a vote for better proposals.

What is the point in forcing all schools to teach evolution. What about the recognition of religious and community rights? :headbang: The state cannot dictate what gets taught in schools! Parents have the right to determine which schools they want their children to go to. This is a legally entrenchred right. The chose on whether or not to teach evolution should lie entirely with the parents' themseleves (i.e. based on the types of schools they send their childre to). We at Chicitia are firm believers in the freedom of choice and will be voting against this resolution.

What is the point in forcing all schools to teach evolution. What about the recognition of religious and community rights? :headbang: The state cannot dictate what gets taught in schools! Parents have the right to determine which schools they want their children to go to. This is a legally entrenchred right. The chose on whether or not to teach evolution should lie entirely with the parents' themseleves (i.e. based on the types of schools they send their childre to). We at Chicitia are firm believers in the freedom of choice and will be voting against this resolution.
uhm this resolution makes sure that parents and schools can decide wether to teach evolution. It doesnt force schools to teach it, it forces goverments to allow schools to exist that teach it or if there is no school that wants to teach it that it can be taught outside schools.
I dont mind people voting against this resolution, but atleast do it for a good reason. Not because you are misinterpreting the resolution as you seem to be doing now, as all this does is give people freedom of choice not take it away.

edit: also for the people against this. Its best to wait with writing a repeal, as it seems that even resolutions that fail, will start of with an advantage for the pro voters at first. So basically just because its 4:1 (pro:against) at the moment doesnt mean it wont end up failing.

:D If this resolution passes, then we need a counter-resolution which states the inverse of this one, and allows schools to teach religion.

I've stated my opnion earlier in the thread but I'll restate them now that the resolution has come up for vote.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will not support this proposal as we believe that the specific teachings of a nation's educational system should be left up to the individual nations to decide.

The Confederated City States of Mikitivity has rated this discussion as being "5 stars", because this it has been some time since we've seen a resolution relating to "Education" come to the United Nations.

At present we must agree with some of the points previously addressed: namely that this resolution (which is classified as a significant human rights issue), seems to cross into the realm of domestic interests. However, at present the Council of Mayors has decided that we shall wait until tomorrow to cast our vote.

That said, I will be monitoring this debate and looking for opinions expressed that are tactiful, well stated, and can convince my government to vote for or against. I am looking forward to an interesting debate on the subject of evolution.

Since when does the UN care if Evolution is taught in every nation? Why is this even an issue? If a person wants to learn about evolution they can do so without the UN expanding their powers for no reason to promote darwinism. As someone else pointed out what if a resolution was brought up that wanted to force all nations to at least give access to all the religions of the world? Would you hop on that bandwagon as well? Of course not. The reason being is that if you want to find out about religion or evolution you can do so as you please. You don't need the UN playing supercop or forcing it down your throat. This resolution is laughably irrelevant and foolish.

Fellow U.N. members,

This proposal is a blunt attack on those that believe that the theory of evolution is false because of this statement:

"Furthermore it is unlikely that God is so malevolent as to plant evidence that our planet is aged 3.5 billion years;"

Certainly, the teaching of evolution should be allowed to go on without threat of persecution. However, this statement is unacceptable in any U.N. proposal. The purpose of this proposal is to no doubt encourage tolerance for teaching evolution. But it discourages tolerance for teaching theories of non-evolution with this single statement, a blunt statement of persecution on those that believe the theory of evolution is wrong!

The author should not have mentioned any "supporting facts" for the theory of evolution if he/she was truly intending to promote tolerance and goodwill toward men.

Tihland votes AGAINST this proposal and encourages all of you to do the same.

I'll be voting against this for the usual national sovereignty reasons.

*pulls out the National Sovereignty Card*

http://img112.echo.cx/img112/1306/natsovcard7yg.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

There is another point that I feel nobody has failed to point out; many nations are past tech and therefore haven't discovered the theory of evolution yet, and belief of their time is that the world was created in seven days, etc.
Of course, perhaps future tech nations have theorised a far more likely theory as to where we came from? To them, teaching evolution as science would be akin to teaching creationism as science in a modern tech nation

There is another point that I feel nobody has failed to point out; many nations are past tech and therefore haven't discovered the theory of evolution yet, and belief of their time is that the world was created in seven days, etc.
Of course, perhaps future tech nations have theorised a far more likely theory as to where we came from? To them, teaching evolution as science would be akin to teaching creationism as science in a modern tech nation

Now that's a damn good point. I'm not sure how it applies to this res though. It seems to me that Mr. Malfoy simply wants the teaching of evolution to be a valid option for member states, not to force them to teach it.

Yes, but to a future tech nation especially forcing them to allow the teaching of a false theory is a bit...ludicrous.

I am looking forward to an interesting debate on the subject of evolution.
We don't think the subject of evolution has anything to do with whether this resolution should pass or not. What should be discussed is whether the UN should be setting or removing limits on what can be taught in member nations. This is a matter of applicability of law, not relevance of the theories or facts of evolution.

Call it the National Sovereignty card if you want. I call it process micromanagement, and I think the UN is wasting their time with this. Had this been a broader argument on the nature of freedom of expression in education (as was frequently suggested to the author), it might have been a valid UN case. But since it isn't, it merely becomes a matter of force-feeding a specific agenda on the UN body politic, a practice we in Frisbeeteria abhor.

Despite the fact that we agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed in this proposal, we strongly recommend a vote Against as a matter of principle.

MJ Donovan,
CEO Emeritus
The Modulated Oligarchical State of Frisbeeteria
Ambassador Designate, Gnomewatchers

Yes, but to a future tech nation especially forcing them to allow the teaching of a false theory is a bit...ludicrous.

Actually, I think forcing any nation, regardless of tech level, to allow the teaching of anything is rather ludicrous. As Frisbeeteria noted, this just seems like a case of UN micromanagement.

darwinism is only a theory, and so should not be taught as fact. i accept that it may well be the most scientifically likely theory, but it still must be taught as theory.
if all cirriculums teach evolutionary theory, they must teach it strictly as theory, and not ignore the fact that there are other explanations. whatever your opinion on the matter, it would be hypocrasy to legislate against the closed mindedness of some religious groups whilst promoting the closed mindedness of the secular. To not accept that there are alternatives, however unlikely you believe them to be, and to not mention them to classes, is to be just as narrow minded and indoctrinating as the religious schools which do not teach darwinism.

this clause is insufficient for promoting diversity and free thinking, though if its only aim was to discriminate against the religious then it is quite successfull. add a clause stating that it must be taught as "theory" and that it must be also mentioned in schools that other alternatives...however obscure....have been suggested.

this theory, even if it does not agree with most religions, should be expressed freely in all regions.

Below is the most recent version of the proposal in question:

Right to Learn about Evolution
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Saint Lucius Malfoy

Description: REGRETTING the threat to human rights which is the suppression of learning about evolutionary theory;

AWARE that some of causes of this suppression are political and/or religious based fears that evolution is an alternative to belief in a deity;

NOTING that many religions do not feel threatened by evolutionary theory. Furthermore it is unlikely that God is so malevolent as to plant evidence that our planet is aged 3.5 billion years;

EMPHASIZING the United Nations must collectively discourage the suppression of this grand unifying theme called evolutionary theory. Teachers of the idea should also be free from imprisonment and persecution.

CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include evolutionary theory in the classroom because a lack of interest by teachers and/or students. This will not be interpreted by the UN as evidence of suppression. Suppression is defined as written laws preventing the teaching of evolutionary theory or punishing those who teach it.

MANDATES a strong symbolical disapproval against any member state that persists to physically imprison / punish teachers or students for engaging in evolutionary studies.

REITERATES the need for member nations to allow students to learn about evolutionary theory;

ASKS member nations work with world leaders to prevent the suppression of evolutionary theory in the classroom.


Votes For: 683: , Expressionasia[3], Crooks and fiends[9], New Cyberia[4], Krya[3], Nevscrow[76], Leagueheim[3], Milwaukey[5], Terror Incognitia[3], JujenDanq[11], Iznogoud[2], The Human Beings[2], United Areas[2], Zoanthropia[4], Ishistan[3], Neo-Pangaea[6], Worldia555[2], Germireland[3], Mosstopia[3], Nerrethans[10], Seberian[2], , Phucitanewa[3], Spiky Peoples[2], Plutonix[5], Auria Sol[4], Killa Kev[6], Milination[2], , Republic of Freedonia[15], Karlovia[3], Tsukame[2], TheUnion[3], Odem[5], Pirates of Vlissingen[2], Bluemason[2], Mayve[3], Iabastan[2], Trahsiw[3], US Liberals[14], Jonezistan[5], Nocra[3], Whatumakeofit[2], Squishystan[5], Pilantras[8], Blaming[3], Beerhood[2], Sorry Suckers[8], United democratic[3], Sorrow Crown[7], C1ndy[7], Venerable libertarians[4], Incompetent Lunacy[4], Wasted Arseholes[2], Calamor[7], Woeterkije[7], Ferantia[4], Jimbob the Jingoistic[11], Netherilien[2], , Center County[2], Simillarianth[2], New Koalastan[3], Luse[4], Even Greater Zognor[2], Askira[3], .

Votes Against: 181: , Poprockistan[3], Nutema[4], Anni Landia[2], Dhamour[2], , Sporkitorus[4], Mighty Stoke[2], Groot Gouda[22], Kreisau[2], Cinciberlandia[2], Cobdenia[3], Bestiville[18], Zyphyr[4], Michelmersh[4], Auxillia[5], Iberostar[11], Nova Capitalia[2], NeoAsiaEuropa[4], Norvikeland[5], Johnimus[5], , Dorris The Destroyer[3].


Voting Ends: Sun May 8 2005


Hey, Malfoy,
As the UN Delgate of Avanakos, I say we teach it. Sure, if we do it gives us(keyword) KNOWLEDGE of what others think. I don't believe in it myself, but I think it is good to teach it but NOT TO THE EXTREME. If you start tearing their brains open and shoving evolution in their, you are just being a dictator, and playing Ultimate Leader of the World. That is why I voted against it, because you who vote for it might take it to the extreme.
And because You think that God doesn't show any evidence, WHERE IS EVOLUTIONS EVIDENCE? And if you say "All around us," You are wrong. This 'planet' isn't 'mother nature,' it's a floating rock that was designed from the greatest blueprint ever. Tell me, how did humans get here?

This proposal is ludicrious as it does nothing. We can, by it's own wording, simply choose to ignore it. Oh, we'll get "frowned upon" by the other nations. I'm sure plenty of nations are "frowned upon" anyway. How would that be any different.

This is not a law, it's an ovbious loophole of itself. This is utter nonsense, and deserves to be voted down just for being useless. Laws enforce things. This bit of fluff floats about waving it's finger at you saying, you really shouldn't do that.. but if you want to I suppose it's ok. What utter tripe.

Windaria votes it down for being useless.

Lord StormWind of Windaria

And if you say "All around us," You are wrong. This 'planet' isn't 'mother nature,' it's a floating rock that was designed from the greatest blueprint ever. Tell me, how did humans get here?

The thing is, we really don't know how in the world humans came to be. Darwin says one thing, the Torah/Bible says another thing, and by golly, there have to be other people that think that humans came along because space aliens created them and dropped them off here in this planet. Everything isn't a PROVEN fact.

I mean, I myself don't believe in darwinism, as it's only a theory that we haven't seen in action ourselves because it takes AGES for "evolution" to occur. Though I also have to say that I will not specifically think about creationism as the right thing either - how would you explain Dinosaurs, then? You can't say that they're demons, 'cause they're not. They were living and breathing organisms. Carbon dating shows that they have lived millenia ago, way before humans showed up, which is also based on carbon dating.

Science is something that tries to explain natural phenomena, and darn it, it nearly comes close. Though not all has to be agreed with if it's only a darn "theory". *shrugs*

No, I'm not criticizing people of the Christian faith - it's just that you have to look past the whole "God created everything. I'm right, you're wrong." Which isn't quite helpful if you want to have harmony with other people/nations.

I think the main problem with the bill is the fact that people often forget that the Evolutionary Theory has absolutely no area within the theory that would go directly against the doctrines of the established religions.

The problem comes through the interpretation. Certain religious groups would see this as a threat to the very station of the doctrines of God. Others don't see that, seeing the evolutionary theory as the direct result of Gods subtle power. Unfortunately, the entire arguement that is being debated is almost ENTIRELY from the side of the threatened group.

In the end, think of it like this: Is it really you voting, or the doctrines of your religion?

I think the main problem with the bill is the fact that people often forget that the Evolutionary Theory has absolutely no area within the theory that would go directly against the doctrines of the established religions.

The problem comes through the interpretation. Certain religious groups would see this as a threat to the very station of the doctrines of God. Others don't see that, seeing the evolutionary theory as the direct result of Gods subtle power. Unfortunately, the entire arguement that is being debated is almost ENTIRELY from the side of the threatened group.

In the end, think of it like this: Is it really you voting, or the doctrines of your religion?

While I would tend to agree with you that evolutionary theory and the belief in a creator do not have to conflict, there are some people for whom the doctrines of their religion are integral parts of their belief system and identity that cannot be separated from the political actions they take.

This Resolution Is Ridiculous!!!!!!! How Dare The Un Interfere In My Nation's Affairs? If We Wanna Shoot A Whole Bunch Of Trouble-maker Students, We Should Be Given The Right To!!!!!

I wonder if a resolution requiring that all nations try to end the supression of the teachings of Christian beliefs would have as much support? Being that no single school of thought on the origins can be proven to be right, why is it that we must choose one and work to end its suppression. I, speaking of behalf of the Commonwealth of Oatesworth in the great region of Curry, feel that this resolution would serve a more unifying purpose if it was stated to end the suppression of the teaching of ANY belief system... be it religious or secular in nature.

I appreciate any comments from my fellow nation states.

Good day,

The Commonwealth of Oatesworth

Doesn't this just fall under the category of basic human rights? The right to preach/ teach what you want w/o negative consequences? If a nation does not allow a person that basic right, why should they allow a teaching they may not agree with? This bill may as well be for the legal protection of homosexual couples. I don't see the point.

Call it the National Sovereignty card if you want. I call it process micromanagement, and I think the UN is wasting their time with this. Had this been a broader argument on the nature of freedom of expression in education (as was frequently suggested to the author), it might have been a valid UN case. But since it isn't, it merely becomes a matter of force-feeding a specific agenda on the UN body politic, a practice we in Frisbeeteria abhor.

Despite the fact that we agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed in this proposal, we strongly recommend a vote Against as a matter of principle.

Hear, hear.

Unfortunately, people will vote for, because evolution is good, so why vote against? *sigh*

This resolution expresses an admirable ideal, but an ideal which is throttled by the res. itself. First, while human rights may indeed be "threatened" by the suppression of teaching, that is each nation's prerogative. Secondly, the res. offhandedly counters a belief that many nations, whether right or wrong, hold to be an infallible one - that humans were created not only above nature, but apart from it. Finally, while Malfoy may believe that evolution is fact, it is not. Nor can it be until it is demonstrated in a legitimate, repeatable scientific experiment. The res. does not enforce the teaching of evolution. However, it does grant advocates of evolutionary theory international diplomatic immunity. Moreover, the res. fails to define "teaching." After all, Social Darwinism and Communism are both evolutionary arguments, and they are also both revolutionary arguments. Obviously the UN should not be endorsing something that encourages civil unrest in its member states. The res. places the UN in a clearly preferential role, recognizing evolutionary theory as more valid than competing theories. This is, big-picture-wise, not a realm in which the UN has a role. In general human rights, the UN is obviously an authority, but not in evolutionary theory. I urge a vote against this bill, not only because of the bill's emphases and flaws but as a matter of principle.

Best Regards,

Peter H.
Supreme Badass of the Holy Empire of Stupendous Badassness

I like this proposal. Even though it is rather narrowly defined, I think that it could serve as a guide for other questions of teaching responsibility.

For example, if nations only allow certain doctrines to be taught, and totally block the dissemination of other information, I think that leads to a restriction on that nation's growth. People should be allowed to make their own choices on what to learn, not have certain ideals imposed on them.

Since this resolution does not force nations to teach evolutionary theory, only that it cannot be legally suppressed. I will vote for it.

Some of the comments made before remind me of say, the people who told Columbus the world was flat and that he'd never get to India going East. Or the folks who laughed when Louis Pasteur proposed vaccinating children to keep them from getting sick. There are negative instances, like when AIDS was called the "gay disease", or certain modern religious cults teach their children that Black people are servants of the devil, and if they ever touch them, they will be corrupted for the rest of their lives.

In each case, someone had a wild idea. Some of them proved useful and right, some hateful and outright wrong, but all of them contributed to the growth of a culture. If a government does not want its populace to believe in evolution, give them a meaningful alternative--don't forbid that they ever mention Darwin's name.

Seeing as mentioning Darwins name isn't allowed anyway, as it's a real life referrence :p

This proposal is currently winningby roughly 3 to 1. If it is still prepared to pass by the end of the voting, I will leave the UN unless a counterproposal stating that religions may be taught freely in schools is passed. :mad:

Some of the comments made before remind me of say, the people who told Columbus the world was flat and that he'd never get to India going East. There are negative instances, like when AIDS was called the "gay disease", or certain modern religious cults teach their children that Black people are servants of the devil, and if they ever touch them, they will be corrupted for the rest of their lives.



Yep, ignored crackpots and people that never existed make religion look stupid. Not to mention that the only people getting AIDS at that time were gay.

This proposal is currently winningby roughly 3 to 1. If it is still prepared to pass by the end of the voting, I will leave the UN unless a counterproposal stating that religions may be taught freely in schools is passed. :mad:
I assume you've already started writing one.

You know there IS a reason religon isn't tuaght in school. Throughout history religon is the number one cuase of war. Also, it's rediculus to teach religon when there is church every week, or whenever sesions are held. And threatning to leave the UN is like saying, "IF I DON'T HAVE MY WAY, IM GOING TO HOLD MY BREATH UNTIL I DO!"
We really don't care.

Hear, hear.

Unfortunately, people will vote for, because evolution is good, so why vote against? *sigh*
Not all of us. I have been asked by my nation to support this resolution for a numbe of reasons, not least of which is the opinion most Ecopoeians hold that evolution is a special case, emblematic of attacks on science and reason.

I fully understand and sympathise with those who vote against for the reasons expressed by the likes of Mr Donovan, Mr Jones and yourself. It is likely that we would support your position were it not for our concerns as articulated above.

Perhaps we are being wilful - even hypocritical - in taking this position. However, it feels really good.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Perhaps we are being wilful - even hypocritical - in taking this position. However, it feels really good.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

The UN representative Yce would like a different choice of words.

The UN representative Yce would like a different choice of words.
A pity. He/she is highly likely to be disappointed.

Some of the comments made before remind me of say, the people who told Columbus the world was flat and that he'd never get to India going East.
Just for reference, nobody told Columbus that the world was flat. It was a well-known fact by that time that the world was round.

Hmm, I guess I should add something meaningful to the debate now that I'm done with my RL nitpick.

Unfortunately, people will vote for, because evolution is good, so why vote against? *sigh* Not necessarily. I personally support this resolution because it increases educational and civil freedoms without enacting further restrictions. It doesn't require that schools teach evolution. It merely requires that schools are allowed to teach evolution. We personally have no problem with that.

Unfortunately, I'm finding it difficult convincing my region otherwise, so it looks like I'll have to throw my delegate vote to the Nay side anyway.

Why guarantee the right to learn about a theory as opposed to the right to learn about a religious truth? To guarantee the right to learn about a theory is to declare your support of that theory as truth. To enforce a theory as truth on the U.N. is to literally enforce a belief system upon people who may or may not want it. This is not a guarantee of rights(which has, MANY TIMES, been already shown through other U.N. bills), this is an unofficial declaration of acceptance by the whole U.N. of a belief. We already have freedom of religion as U.S. doctrine. Were I to write a bill that had "Right to Worship Christ as a Man Who Died, Was Resurrected, and Ascended Into Heaven For Our Sins, and Exists in a Holy Trinity with God(the Father) and the Holy Spirit," nobody would support it. Why? Because that's a religious belief that's already protect. Both as a teaching and as a belief, this is already protected. To say any more is to say, "We officially support this doctrine."

Personally, I agree with this proposal, but from what I have heard, it would have been much more effective had it been something more general on the freedom of educational subject matter. As it stands however, this proposal is incredibly mild. Evolution may be theory, but it is as close as it can be to fact. No experiment can ever prove evolution did happen, becuase it happened in the past over such long periods of time. Its biggest contender, the Intellegent design theory, has been rather strongly refuted by many scientists (I am refering specifically to the principle that living things are too complex to have arisen from "chance" and bio-chemical stews).
Frankly, I do not see this as an issue of belief systems, allow me to explain why. In history class, you are expected to be taught that history which is agreed upon by most historians. In a science class, you are expected to be taught that which is agreed upon by most scientists. To believe in Creationism is an act of faith, but it has little purpose in the biology classroom, since it is based on faith and not science. It should no more be taught in science class than darwinism should be taught in sunday school.
Secondly, there is more than one type of belief. It is impossible to prove that you are not a brain floating in a jar somewhere being fed sensations by a computer, nevertheless, you believe that you are no such thing. The absence of perfect proof does not put evolution in the same catagory as creationism. The latter is a religous idea, the former is an idea based soley on empirical evidence, big difference here.

:confused:

To the great UN counsel:

If you want to teach your nations evolution, you have my blessing. If you do not want to teach your nations evolution you have my blessing.

But if you want me to teach in my nation your doctorine you have my cannons.

No ones will should be forced down another ones throat. Period and end of thought

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

I cannot approve this proposal. It is not the place of the United Nations to interfere in matters so trivial as a single nation's scientific education policies.

What business does the UN have in a nation's education system?

What business does the UN have in a nation's education system?
i agree with this statement fully. it has always been our stance that the UN has nothing to do with a nation's education policy. we aknowledge that this isnt a direct infringment on it, in that it just gives people the right to learn it, not mandates that every school teach it, but that being said, it could set precident for other education releated proposals. we will be voting no on this.

*re-reads through proposal*

also, part seems contradictory. it states this isnt an attempt to enforce or dictate curriculum, and that it doesent have to be taught due to lack of interest, yet it has the line
REITERATES the need for member nations to allow students to learn about evolutionary theory
which to me is like 'oh it is optional, but you have to teach it anyway', which, in our eyes is a major contradiction. in TLA, evolution is taught in science, creationism (for those few christians, jews, muslims that actually inhabit TLA) is taught in theology. if you are going to say evloution is optional but has to be taught, than it could be said that creationism is optional but has to be taught as well. which leads us to a) why is something optional, but has to be taught, and b) what role does the UN play in our classrooms anyway, except being a part of the Social studies subject?

:confused:

To the great UN counsel:

If you want to teach your nations evolution, you have my blessing. If you do not want to teach your nations evolution you have my blessing.

But if you want me to teach in my nation your doctorine you have my cannons.

No ones will should be forced down another ones throat. Period and end of thought

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand
Sometimes I just have to sit back and marvel at the intelligent debate here in the UN.

i agree with this statement fully. it has always been our stance that the UN has nothing to do with a nation's education policy. we aknowledge that this isnt a direct infringment on it, in that it just gives people the right to learn it, not mandates that every school teach it, but that being said, it could set precident for other education releated proposals. we will be voting no on this.
Are you saying it's time for the...

National Sovereignty Card (http://img112.echo.cx/img112/1306/natsovcard7yg.jpg)

Sometimes I just have to sit back and marvel at the intelligent debate here in the UN.
question is: are they even a member? if so, do they realise that they have to do this if it passes? if not, do they realise that this doesnt affect them?

Are you saying it's time for the...

National Sovereignty Card (http://img112.echo.cx/img112/1306/natsovcard7yg.jpg)
yeah, probably. this proposal is also going by the assumption that evolution is universally accepted. whilst the majority of TLA accepts it, there are some parts of the nation that dont, and there are many nations that dont either. as i stated in the edit to the post, if evolution has to be taught, then maybe creationism has to be taught as well. in some places, that is universally accepted too.

But the point is that evolution doesn't have to be taught, it merely has to be allowed to be taught.

RL example: I'm allowed to go outside right now and dance on my roof (I think). But that doesn't mean I'm going to do it, and it sure as hell doesn't mean anyone's forcing me to. It's the same with this resolution. Educators have the right to teach about evolution, but they don't have to. All this resolution does is give them the choice.

Originally Posted by Sidestreamer
As I already said, how about we just allow our students to convert to Islam? Evolution is for godless heretics and I will not allow for it to be taught in our schools.




D*** you Sidestreamer. You are ignorant enough to believe the b******t they teach you at school. Islam is a religion, just like Christianity. In fact, it is stunning to me that Christianity is still called a religion when there are more than 100 premonitions who condemn each other to hell. Very nice, you heretic.

Why do we have a UN now? They try to force policys that should be left up to the nation not the world. The UN should be here for the sole purpose of stoping wars. and (like last vote) deciding international laws, i.e. diplomatic imuinaty (how ever its spelled), laws of the sea and air space. It is NOT here to force (make rulings) on nations to say "Hey this should be thought in your school system not this." That is not the purpose of the UN.

But the point is that evolution doesn't have to be taught, it merely has to be allowed to be taught.

RL example: I'm allowed to go outside right now and dance on my roof (I think). But that doesn't mean I'm going to do it, and it sure as hell doesn't mean anyone's forcing me to. It's the same with this resolution. Educators have the right to teach about evolution, but they don't have to. All this resolution does is give them the choice.


CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include evolutionary theory in the classroom because a lack of interest by teachers and/or students. This will not be interpreted by the UN as evidence of suppression. Suppression is defined as written laws preventing the teaching of evolutionary theory or punishing those who teach it
to me, that says it is optional

REITERATES the need for member nations to allow students to learn about evolutionary theory
to me, that says it isnt optional.

again, we are against UN influence in the education system, save for being apart of the social studies subject. education does not trancend borders, and neither the allowing or disallowing the teaching of evolution or any other subject matter. if this was saying that creationism has to be taught, it would be shot down in an instant, so why is it different with evolution?

1) Have you actually read the resolution?

2) Have you read any of the arguments for or against the resolution?

If you answered "yes" to either of the preceding questions, then I'm afraid I have to inform you that you've failed at grasping even the simplest concepts regarding the proposal in question. I'd post a more detailed argument, but why would I when you can easily find it by clicking on the thread labelled "Official Topic?" Please post there.

Is there a law stating that on the matters of religion and belief, the UN is not allowed to interfere. If there isn't please make one, I will cast my vote

to me, that says it is optional


to me, that says it isnt optional.

again, we are against UN influence in the education system, save for being apart of the social studies subject. education does not trancend borders, and neither the allowing or disallowing the teaching of evolution or any other subject matter. if this was saying that creationism has to be taught, it would be shot down in an instant, so why is it different with evolution?


Why should we even teach religion in our schools? that is why we have Sunday school and other relgious schools for things they shoulnt teach in public school

Is there a law stating that on the matters of religion and belief, the UN is not allowed to interfere. If there isn't please make one, I will cast my vote
actually, you brought up a very interesting point. if i am not mistaken, this could already be covered in a passed resolution, and thus is
http://img112.echo.cx/img112/7448/illegalproposal2yd.jpg

REITERATES the need for member nations to allow students to learn about evolutionary theory
to me, that says it isnt optional.

It's optional for the educators to teach evolution. It's not optional for the state to allow the educators that choice.
if this was saying that creationism has to be taught, it would be shot down in an instant, so why is it different with evolution?
Because this resolution doesn't say that evolution has to be taught. It merely says that the government can't ban its teaching. Just because people in Nargopia are allowed to drink alcohol at the age of 15 doesn't mean they do.

Sometimes I just have to sit back and marvel at the intelligent debate here in the UN.

Thank you. FInally some intelligent conversation. The UN was built to mantain peace and equality among nations. They have no say in what they teach to our children. You will have my cannons as well. :sniper:

actually, you brought up a very interesting point. if i am not mistaken, this could already be covered in a passed resolution, and thus is
http://img112.echo.cx/img112/7448/illegalproposal2yd.jpg
SO cant we stop them from passing this bill or something?

Kids of all nations should ahve the right to learn about evolution. Many scientists agree that it's correct, and they are the ones that I trust with this issue, not some crazy radical Catholic bible thumping priest.

no matter what i will reject this bill.

"To you is your teachings, to me is mine"
-anynomous

Why should we even teach religion in our schools? that is why we have Sunday school and other relgious schools for things they shoulnt teach in public school
why shouldnt we teach religion in schools? we are not, as a whole, a religious nation, but if a school wants to teach religion, and that is our derogative

OOC: in defence of sidestreamer, they based their nation of principles of evangelical christians. the thing is, that is the kind of ideology that you have to deal with in a proposal such as this. in the real world, evolution is generally accepted, almost universally. in nationstates, however, it is far from generally accepted. also, ooc, i accept evolution over creationism, but ic, i accept that we actually have a diety living in one of our provinces, and that province is pretty much devout to her.

You will have my cannons as well. :sniper:
Two things interest me.

1) You are under the impression that a sniper smiley will intimidate me.

2) You threaten me with military action with no hope of success. I have found that you spend $182,240,644,497.41 (roughly 200 billion USD) on your military. Nargopia spends $2,884,319,025,772.80 (nearly 3 trillion USD) on its military. In case you're curious, that's almost sixteen times as much. Not to mention we are much more capable of continuing an extending conflict with our Powerhouse economy than you are with you Developing one.

That being said, read the damn proposal, will you? This doesn't require your schools to teach evolution. It merely gives the students the right to learn about it. If your educators agree that it is unnecessary or inapplicable to teach evolution, then they won't.

You know there IS a reason religon isn't tuaght in school. Throughout history religon is the number one cuase of war. Also, it's rediculus to teach religon when there is church every week, or whenever sesions are held. And threatning to leave the UN is like saying, "IF I DON'T HAVE MY WAY, IM GOING TO HOLD MY BREATH UNTIL I DO!"
We really don't care.

Maybe you should go and read a history book. Hint: Hitler, Stalin, Sadaam (well at least until it suited him) Pinochet, Most communist leaders in general. All athiests. Heck even the Israili/Palestinian conflict is more about water rights than it is about religion (some people are just using religion as an excuse). But whatever floats your boat man, if you think parroting the same thing that has been said for a 100 years now, is cool, have fun. BTW there are plenty of places where religion is taught. (Correct me someone if I'm wrong but I believe there are general religion classes in British schools)

All of that aside. The Holy Empire of the Brown Stickmen is quite in favor of teaching evolution in our schools. We are against this proposal for the reasons stated earlier but very much worth repeating:

- It doesn't actually do anything, it isn't enforcable
- Its a threat to national soverignty
- The UN should only be passing resolutions that affect relations between nations, not internal affairs
- Related to above, this resolution is directly at odds with resolution #8 Citizen Rule Required. This is something that should be left up to the citizens of individual nations to decide

And you should be concerned when members leave, if people are so discusted by a resolution there is somethign wrong with it, and if enough people leave then the UN ceases to work as intended.

Kids of all nations should ahve the right to learn about evolution. Many scientists agree that it's correct, and they are the ones that I trust with this issue, not some crazy radical Catholic bible thumping priest.
Nargopia would like this body to note that Genoslovakia does not necessarily represent the general viewpoint of the proponents of this resolution.

- Related to above, this resolution is directly at odds with resolution #8 Citizen Rule Required.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Resolution 8 only states that nations must have citizen rule on some level of government. It never specifies that citizen rule stretches to matters of education.

Two things interest me.

1) You are under the impression that a sniper smiley will intimidate me.

2) You threaten me with military action with no hope of success. I have found that you spend $182,240,644,497.41 (roughly 2 billion USD) on your military. Nargopia spends $2,884,319,025,772.80 (nearly 3 trillion USD) on its military. In case you're curious, that's almost sixteen times as much. Not to mention we are much more capable of continuing an extending conflict with our Powerhouse economy than you are with you Developing one.

That being said, read the damn proposal, will you? This doesn't require your schools to teach evolution. It merely gives the students the right to learn about it. If your educators agree that it is unnecessary or inapplicable to teach evolution, then they won't.



Forgive me, but my quoting you was an accident. I only meant to quote the funny looking letter above you. My mistake. The sniper was to be my cannon but since i could not find a cannon.....
Anyway, intimidating with a sniper is worthless to me and was not my intention.
However, we will kick your ass in a military conflict. And i am not curious.

That being said, i will stick to my opinions. Thank you :)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Resolution 8 only states that nations must have citizen rule on some level of government. It never specifies that citizen rule stretches to matters of education.

Then what good is it? If the UN can at will decide what the citizens of nations can have a say in then its useless as well.

:headbang:

*hunts through the resolution list*
lets see, this would be covered under 'scientific freedom', 'gay rights' (i know seems odd, but it does), technicaly 'religious tolerance', 'UBR', 'UFC', 'Rights of minorities and women', and the recently passed 'discrimination accord'. so this is either a waste of time and paperwork, or it is http://img112.echo.cx/img112/7448/illegalproposal2yd.jpg

what does that all mean

what does that all mean
it means that this is covered by all of those passed resolutions, in some form or other.
We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life
that is the part of the gay rights resolution that covers this.

why shouldnt we teach religion in schools? we are not, as a whole, a religious nation, but if a school wants to teach religion, and that is our derogative

OOC: in defence of sidestreamer, they based their nation of principles of evangelical christians. the thing is, that is the kind of ideology that you have to deal with in a proposal such as this. in the real world, evolution is generally accepted, almost universally. in nationstates, however, it is far from generally accepted. also, ooc, i accept evolution over creationism, but ic, i accept that we actually have a diety living in one of our provinces, and that province is pretty much devout to her.

What the hell is an OOC? And i attacked him in defense of my belief. Read a book with facts or something

What the hell is an OOC? And i attacked him in defense of my belief. Read a book with facts or something
OOC means out of character (talking as yourself) and IC means in character (talking from your nation's stand point). also, both IC and OOC, watch yourself, as some of the comments, especially the one directed at Sidestreamer, can be concidered flaming

What the hell is an OOC? And i attacked him in defense of my belief. Read a book with facts or something
OOC means "Out of Character". Meaning that the other part of his post was "In Character", in the sense of the fact that this forum is based around roleplaying nations.

Instead of flaming in response, perhaps you should read some of the sticky threads in the forums on how this game is played. Start with the one in my signature, detailing the RULES of this forum.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

hey fris, how did this proposal make it past the mod team?

that is the part of the gay rights resolution that covers this.
How does that possibly cover this at all?

How does that possibly cover this at all?
besides the fact that i said it was also covered in other resolutions too, stopping someone from teaching evolution is discriminatory, in this case on belief. if you go through all those resolutions (cos there is too much to copy/paste here), you will see that there are resolutions against discrimination, and the prevention of laws that discriminate. also, others listed note freedom of religion and belief, the latter is what this comes under.

hey fris, how did this proposal make it past the mod team?
It was reviewed in light of the rules of proposals and found to be legal. We don't review the entire bulk of case law about prior resolutions unless it just jumps off the page, or someone asks for a review.

As one of the people most familiar with the history of UN resolutions (Goobergunch and I do most of the maintenence of the UN Timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline) on NSwiki), I gave it a thorough scouring, and didn't spot anything screamingly obvious. Two other mods and an Admin also looked over it in detail and didn't see a problem.

With 100 resolutions under our belts, it's becoming increasingly difficult to find new ideas for resolutions that are worthy of consideration. I think we're cutting just a wee bit of slack when it comes to overlap with prior resolutions. That, and we just don't have the time. If you guys don't file complaints, sometimes they'll just slip by.

It was reviewed in light of the rules of proposals and found to be legal. We don't review the entire bulk of case law about prior resolutions unless it just jumps off the page, or someone asks for a review.

As one of the people most familiar with the history of UN resolutions (Goobergunch and I do most of the maintenence of the UN Timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline) on NSwiki), I gave it a thorough scouring, and didn't spot anything screamingly obvious. Two other mods and an Admin also looked over it in detail and didn't see a problem.

With 100 resolutions under our belts, it's becoming increasingly difficult to find new ideas for resolutions that are worthy of consideration. I think we're cutting just a wee bit of slack when it comes to overlap with prior resolutions. That, and we just don't have the time. If you guys don't file complaints, sometimes they'll just slip by.
well, i'll file one now, as i have spotted many instances in passed resolutions that cover this already, notably the UBR resolution and UFC.

As usual, Allemande opposes any proposal that does not pertain to international affairs in some way, shape, or form. A nation's educational curriculum, however absurb, affects only that nation. This proposal is therefore beyond the legitimate scope of interest of the NSUN.

Why is evolutionism to be treated as a very special question that needs a resolution of its own.

Firstly, it's not a religion even if it tastes of religion, because certain facts may make it fall to the ground where religion totally is a question of belief.

Secondly, it's not science even if it tastes of science because there are too many missing links in the concept.

Quiltlifter acknowledges evolutionism as a matter of common sense that arouses controversy from religious groups who underestimates God's tools and brilliance in having created the Universe.

Quiltlifter recommend member states to vote 'yes' to this proposal.

I think that there is no need for this proposal, and giving people the right to teach it in educational surroundings is implying that it is fact. Well, the fact is that it is a THEORY, and should be treated as such. Theories should not be taught in schools, but published in scientific journals and placed in libraries where they can be read by those that want to study this particular theory.

If it is being taught in schools, it will be interpreted as fact by the students, and I believe that this will be detrimental to society as a whole in the long run.

In this I only see a society which teaches Evolution Theory, as a society without purpose, and a society without direction.

I am urging members to vote AGAINST this resolution. :gundge:

Evolution is a theory that belongs to 'Natural History'.

To offer education in any kind of 'History' without using theories is unthinkable.

At 18 endorsements? Even I am more powerfull than that!

I meant compared to all the delegates who have like 4 endorsements.

I've just become Delegate and so think that I'm all powerful. Ingore me if I say stuff like that! :)

I will be voting against for the following reasons:

1) Presupposes the existence of God. And would imply an official UN belief in the existence of God if it were passed:
"Furthermore it is unlikely that God is so malevolent as to plant evidence that our planet is aged 3.5 billion years"

2) Mandates in it's wording that evolution is the ultimate truth over all other theories and beliefs which is something the UN shouldn't do in this regard. It should allow it to be taught but not by telling people it is better than their beliefs.

3) The "right" to learn evolution is NOT a human right. It is not a basic human need. I could live, and indeed quite happily, without it, and it is not exactly the stuff revolutions are born out of. I do not like the dea of human rights theory being watered down to the extent that they are meaningless.

4) (and lastly) I do approve of freedom of belief, opinion, expression, speech. However, all of these have already been covered. Therefore this proposal is redundant.

as i said earlier, though was largely ignored, it is only liberating to force states to teach all opinions and not be biased. This legislation allows states to teach darwinism but suppress religious views which may r may not contradict it. The law should state that no belief, scientific or religious, on the matter of the origin of the world, should suppressed by the govt, but all should be taught as theories, leaving kids to make their own decisions.

this bill attempts to ban religious indoctrinatin, which is admirable, but does not equally stem the rise in the almost religious atheistic indoctrination in our school systems.

well, i'll file one now, as i have spotted many instances in passed resolutions that cover this already, notably the UBR resolution and UFC.
Once it hits the voting floor, only an admin can remove it ... and they won't. It causes problems with the game code.

You want it gone? Defeat it.

But the point is that evolution doesn't have to be taught, it merely has to be allowed to be taught.

But what's the point then? The title doesn't even fit the resolution. It's not about the right to learn evolutionairy theory, it's about the allowing of teaching it. But nothing is stopping nations from teaching that it is wrong, and that you have to believe in creationism. That means that this resolution is utterly pointless.

I, the Phantom of Krankor, provisionally support this resolution, provided that all evolutionary education makes it clear that everyone was descended from chickens.

well, i'll file one now, as i have spotted many instances in passed resolutions that cover this already, notably the UBR resolution and UFC.

It has been previously stated in this thread that other resolutions cover part of this resolution. I think this logic is unsound for the following reasons:

1) UBR does not mention anything about teachers and students. Indeed according to UBR (UBR Article 6 which states "Article 6 -- No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses.")
teachers could still be imprisoned or exiled for teaching evolution if a government has outlawed teaching and learning about evolution.

2) You may claim that UBR Article 1 or 2 covers this proposal:

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

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference."

Article 1 explicitly deals with one's right to religious beliefs and in no way is the theory of evolution a matter of religious belief or worship. As for Article 2 it only protects individuals who make statements in public or through the media. It does not specifiy protection for teachers and students in the context of a classroom. Especially in government controlled schools.

3) The Universal Freedom of Choice is also a noble (albeit vague) resolution that covers choice behavior. Once again it does not protect teachers and students with regards to the subject of learning evolutionary theory. It could be interpreted that way but I doubt it could be used in defense of a teacher who has been fired or imprisoned for teaching evolution in the classroom. Furthermore it would not protect students from being punished for learning about evolutionary theory or requested to learn about evolutionary theory. The reason is that the UFC cannot violate UBR which states that in Article 6 -- "No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses." If it is an offense to teach or learn about evolutionary theory in the classroom but students and teachers persist in its study they will be justifably imprisoned or punished based on the UBR.

Regards,
Lucius Malfoy II

As usual, Allemande opposes any proposal that does not pertain to international affairs in some way, shape, or form. A nation's educational curriculum, however absurb, affects only that nation. This proposal is therefore beyond the legitimate scope of interest of the NSUN.

We in Lucius Malfoy II disagree. I will not sight RL United Nations examples. However the NS United Nations must be concerned with matters of education, culture and world peace. Education is a source of peace and appreciation for the diversity of the natural world. Since evolutionary theory is the cornerstone for understanding ecosystems and their interactions the UN surely appreciates its importance for understanding resource depletion and human interdependence with the natural environment.

The UN is a voice of peace and global security and wants to ensure the freedom to learn, hold diverse opinions, and understand diversity among nations. The goal of this is to ensure world peace through logic, reason and mutual understanding. This proposal fits with the UN mandate and should be supported on the grounds that its intent is to

"contribute(s) to peace and security by promoting collaboration among nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the peoples of the world." (if interested in the reasoning behind this quote it may be found after some careful research - trying not to brand here but I think we need to step back and think about the bigger picture with regards to the ultimate goals of the NS United Nations which I believe are peace and global security through communication, mutual understanding and education).

Sincere regards,
Lucius Malfoy II

This is a resolution is completely inappropriate for the UN. In what way is the "Right to Learn Evolution" any different from the "Right to Drink Beer" or the "Right to Play Football on a Sunday".

In any case, from my reading on th discussion the proposal itself is not a "Right to Learn Evolution" but a "Right to Teach Evolution". A completely different topic since no right is given to those learning but rather to those doing the teaching. The persecution alluded to in the resolution is specifically at the teachers and not at those being taught.

I can therefore only conclude that it is a thinly veiled attack on societies and cultures with a strong religious identity. In these societies, the rights are granted only to those with a viewpoint which is not in line with the rest of that society. It is therefore selective in determining to whom the Rights are given.

What is more, there are nations in which the Theory of Evolution is completely false. In these societies, man (and associated races) have devolved over a long period of time. How can the UN justify offering Rights to Learn/Teach NONSENSE in these countries.

And finally, I believe this proposal is not something we should even be discussing at this level. The teaching of evolution is an issue for national goverments and should be covered under a far broader topic of SCIENCES.

The resolution simply has too many faults and those voting should reject it.

This is a resolution is completely inappropriate for the UN. In what way is the "Right to Learn Evolution" any different from the "Right to Drink Beer" or the "Right to Play Football on a Sunday".

In any case, from my reading on th discussion the proposal itself is not a "Right to Learn Evolution" but a "Right to Teach Evolution". A completely different topic since no right is given to those learning but rather to those doing the teaching. The persecution alluded to in the resolution is specifically at the teachers and not at those being taught.

I can therefore only conclude that it is a thinly veiled attack on societies and cultures with a strong religious identity. In these societies, the rights are granted only to those with a viewpoint which is not in line with the rest of that society. It is therefore selective in determining to whom the Rights are given.

What is more, there are nations in which the Theory of Evolution is completely false. In these societies, man (and associated races) have devolved over a long period of time. How can the UN justify offering Rights to Learn/Teach NONSENSE in these countries.

And finally, I believe this proposal is not something we should even be discussing at this level. The teaching of evolution is an issue for national goverments and should be covered under a far broader topic of SCIENCES.

The resolution simply has too many faults and those voting should reject it.

Perhaps Lucius Malfoy II should be more specific. Peace and conflict scholars around the globe are seriously considering the origins of violence, aggression, coalitions, and altruism from an evolutionary perspective. The more students that learn these concepts may help the United World of Nations understand and prevent conflict. Education (which entails teachers and students) is a fundamental instrument for understanding and preventing world conflict. Further resolutions should be written addressing these issues that are of global importance. I envision the first step is to secure freedom for teachers and students where necessary to achieve understanding and appreciation of the natural world (e.g., why do humans kill one another? Surely an answer such as the 'devil made them do it' is not useful for the prevention of future violence and global instability). The second step is to create education networks around the world which bring national and cultural diversity to the table regarding how to foster peace, reduce conflict and conserve natural resources. I see better educational freedoms as an integral part of this process.

Lucius Malfoy II

We in Lucius Malfoy II disagree. I will not sight RL United Nations examples.

Ser Niccolo believes that the education system within Lucius Malfoy II is also less than perfect ;)

Since evolutionary theory is the cornerstone for understanding ecosystems and their interactions the UN surely appreciates its importance for understanding resource depletion and human interdependence with the natural environment.

Since your first statement is, IMHO rhetoric, the conclusion is rendered meaningless. Clearly, understanding ecosystems is important when considering resource depletion but I see little relevance here to Evolutionary Theory.

And as a side note, this is a Human Rights Resolution so claims for environmental benefits ought to be inadmissible

The UN is a voice of peace and global security and wants to ensure the freedom to learn, hold diverse opinions, and understand diversity among nations.

So your approach then is limit this diversity of opinions by favouring one of them?

I suspect that you genuinely do not realise the flaws in your argument.

After some debate, the The Commonwealth of Lesser Pacifica has come to the conclusion that they will vote against this resolution.

Firstly, the resolution only forces nations to allow the teaching of The Theory of Evolution, and provides provision for nations to simply ignore mandatory teaching of the Theory of Evolution thanks to non-interest of the teachers and students in the school systems, whether they be public, private, or homeschool situations.

Additionally, this resolution brings religion where it doesn't nessicarily belong. Although many religions do not feel threatend by The Theory of Evolution, a number of sects of those religions, as well as other religions as a whole, do feel threatend by the Theory of Evolution (or, more specifically, The Theory of MacroEvolution). This proposal also brings up a theological debate as to whether or not God, who is also apparently being endorsed by the UN as the sole deity of the universe, would place evidence that (depending on interpretation) indicates that the Earth is 3.5 billion years old.

Finally, the phrase "Theory of Evolution" could actually be differently interpreted from nation to nation. As no definition is given for what is considered to be a part of the "Theory of Evolution", technically, one could interpret it as one of the following-

The Theories of Macroevolution, Microevolution, and Abiogenesis
The Theories of Macroevolution and Microevolution
The Theories of Macroevolution and Abiogenesis
The Theories of Microevolution and Abiogenesis
The Theory of Macroevolution
The Theory of Microevolution
The Theory of Abiogenisis

The Commonwealth of Lesser Pacifica urges that all nations involved think over the Resolution before voting, and additionally reccomends voting against this flawed Resolution.

Well I can't disagree with the sentiment that improving education is a good thing.

But you once again fail to disprove that this resolution clearly attacks those nations where the theory of evolution is either not generally accepted or (in the NS world) does not even apply (in the sense that we understand it in the Real World).

If your intent is the support for improving education, I support that whole-heartedly. However, I do not believe the Resolution will achieve that goal and, on the grounds that the Resolution is prejudiced against certain faith-oriented nations, I cannot support the Resolution itself

I've read like five or six posts by nations saying they are against forcing nations to teach evolution. In the other thread, I attempted to clear up this misunderstanding. It appears, however, that I was too subtle. There, I am forced to result to large, capitol letters in bold.

THIS PROPOSAL DOEs NOT FORCE......
IRRELIVENT!
LEARNING A THEORY IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT!


If the UN votes for this then why don't they just vote in a world wide curriculum for all nations or better yet… Enforce the “option” of learning any creation/evolution theory’s even the ones diametrically opposed to your nations leading religions.

well, you are 3,500 votes up at the moment, so going well thus far Lucius

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! :eek:

So this resolution isn't discriminating anyone.... It is simply wanting countries to have rules that say someone can in fact learn about the theory of evolution.. That doesn't mean that person has to believe in the theory of evolution... As a second point, why is it, that if a person is a religious person, that, that same person can't know about the other theories on the matter. if for no other reason than to futher his/her own knowledge about it and come up with better, more thoughtful ways to counter that other example. Also if a person knows more about things like this, they are in fact a smarter person... Now as yourself a question.. Would you rather meet/talk/interact with someone of intellegence or someone who is not?
~Lord Dakanaer Soulfire~

Education is a fundamental instrument for understanding and preventing world conflict.

I must disagree here - This resolution goes far from promoting peace. It protects the teaching of evolution without defining what exactly is meant by "teaching" or "evolution." This is a huge hole and it compromises the entire resolution.

Social Darwinism and Communism are both evolutionary theories. Social Darwinism states that some people are more successful in life because they are socially further evolved and therefore superior. Communism states that government systems evolve in synergy with their opposition, and the ultimate evolution of government is Communism.

Social Darwinism leads to caste repression and human rights violations. Communism leads to revolution and bloodshed.

Communist revolutionaries and Social Darwinist oligarchs, under this resolution, can claim to be teaching evolution - making them immune from government prosecution, under international protection from the UN itself.

THIS RESOLUTION PROMOTES CIVIL UNREST. DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS RESOLUTION.

I think that the next resolution should be voted down, not because it is a bad idea, but because it should inlclude other theories, for example, creationism. People should be as highly educated as possible and should have all theories of human develpoment presented to them. Vote this one down and make a better one that is more incluseive because we can't ammend resolutions unless they are first repealed.

I firmly believe that evolution should be taught, but I also believe that other theories should be taught as well, or, according to the resolution, not be banned from being taught.

thank you for your time.

-->The Excellency of the Free Land of Zygoat

So teaching Evolution hey ?

If you are a believer of evolution you can NOT be a believer in religion.

Lets teach kids the real way we came to the earth and not fill their heads with imaculate conceptions and white elephants etc.

While we're at it lets make it compulsary for them all to have read "stephen Hawkins" "A brief history of time and space" by the time they are 13.

;)

So teaching Evolution hey ?

If you are a believer of evolution you can NOT be a believer in religion.

Lets teach kids the real way we came to the earth and not fill their heads with imaculate conceptions and white elephants etc.

While we're at it lets make it compulsary for them all to have read "stephen Hawkins" "A brief history of time and space" by the time they are 13.

;)

I must disagree here - This resolution goes far from promoting peace. It protects the teaching of evolution without defining what exactly is meant by "teaching" or "evolution." This is a huge hole and it compromises the enotre resolution.

Social Darwinism and Communism utilize evolutionary theory as their logical base, and are in a sense evolutionary theories. (Social Darwinism leads to caste repression and human rights violations. Communism leads to revolution and bloodshed.)

Communist revolutionaries and Social Darwinist oligarchs, under this resolution, can claim to be teaching evolution - therefore immune from government prosecution.

THIS RESOLUTION PROMOTES CIVIL UNREST. DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS RESOLUTION.

Holy red herring. That is very unjust of you to envoke fear to knock down this proposal. I think you need to read up on your history a bit better. In another world (known as RL) there was the inexplicable third reich. It is well known that their leader disagreed with evolutionary theory because he could not swallow the crucial idea that modern apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans) share a common ancestor with humans (and hence are no less evolved). Indeed the sticking point for why racists do not like modern evolutionary theory is that it firmly states that all humans regardless of race are equally evolved biologically speaking and may produce beautiful highly adapted offspring. Proponents of eugenics and racists views (I refer to them as ladder proponents of life which is clearly unacceptable views when one is educated in evolutionary studies) cannot appreciate the idea that all races and cultures are contemporaries with no one being more evolved than the other.

It is politicians and zealots that use the publics lack of understanding of modern evolutionary science to exploit racial biases (e.g., it was commonly believed that people of Ireland were less evolved and more lowly creatures - hard to believe I know). The idea of "higher" versus "lower" has no place in evolutionary studies and gives further mandate for the United Nations to assist with the study of evolution ensuring that fundamental rights of all people are not violated.

I, the Phantom of Krankor, provisionally support this resolution, provided that all evolutionary education makes it clear that everyone was descended from chickens.



I like it, BUT there is one small glitch here, we didn't actually come fromt the chickens but from the "Outer Mongolian Web-Footed Albatross."

If we're going to teach it, let's teach it right hey !

it sounds like a good idea to me. teachers should not be afraid to talk about evolution in the class room. our children need to be shown science as it really is, many theories with many people agreeing and disagreeing. and disagreeing should not mean imprisonment or worse. this is a good resolution which preserves free thinking. to be able to outlaw ideas and limit a population to one persons ideals leads only to close-mindedness and ignorance in that population. which can turn to misunderstanding of other cultures, fear, and in the worst cases, genocide.

Does anyone else see a loophole big enough to drive an 18-wheeler through? This resolution does nothing but share the uninformed opinion of the masses. There isn't even a definition of evolution presented. The writing, purpose, and scope are so pathetic as to warrant little more than a click on *disapprove.*

I only write this because the discussion does not seem to go away despite many sound criticisms of the proposal. To save the beaurocracy of writing a repeal, I urge those reading this to disapprove this message.

I dont really think it matters what the definition of evolution is. this could apply to absolutely any theory. The point is that no country should be able to pass laws that prevent the theory of evolution from being taught. If teachers want to present children with the theory that clouds are made from cotton candy, i think that they should be able to do so. As long as it is known the difference between a theory, and a law. This resolution is by no means forcing the theory of evolution on anyone. But it does give each individual person a CHOICE. and i think that is what's important.

...the inexplicable third reich. It is well known that their leader disagreed with evolutionary theory ...The idea of "higher" versus "lower" has no place in evolutionary studies and gives further mandate for the United Nations to assist with the study of evolution ensuring that fundamental rights of all people are not violated.

Once again I must disagree. First of all, the leader of the third reich (let's call him "Bob" for convenience's sake) may not have been a Darwinist, but he preached that "Aryans" were the highest form of humanity, biologically and genetically superior to all other races. (BTW, even if Bob was anti-evolution, it still doesn't prove that Darwinism can't also be dangerous to a nation's peace and stability.) Aryan superiority sure sounds like Darwinism to me: evolution of higher, more complex, "better" creatures. You may believe that protozoa are on par with humans, but that's not what Darwinism says: it says that life on Earth has moved up an evolutionary ladder, and that humans are currently the top rung. (Unless you start subdividing "human" into race, economic status, etc. - which is precisely the problem with the resolution.) Eugenics may be twisted, but it is still an evolutionary argument. And therefore it supports my argument, not Lucius Malfoy II's.

In any case, LMII's refutation of my post does nothing to refute the specific examples which prove my case: Social Darwinism (it's called that for a reason, you know) and Communism.

This is not a case of distractionary fearmongering: this is a case of a shoddy and misguided resolution.

Have a Nice Day,
Stupendous Badassness

Originally posted by Pooksta

So teaching Evolution hey ?

If you are a believer of evolution you can NOT be a believer in religion.

Lets teach kids the real way we came to the earth and not fill their heads with imaculate conceptions and white elephants etc.

While we're at it lets make it compulsary for them all to have read "stephen Hawkins" "A brief history of time and space" by the time they are 13.

surely thats the kind of ignorant, closed minded atheistic aproach that would be encouraged by promoting the evolutionary theory but not promoting religious education. i dont not dispute your right to have such opinions, but they are highly biased, and i wouldnt want them controlling any kids school syllabus.

evolution is more than compatible with much of religion. Darwin himself finished the "Origin Of Species", with its final paragraph claiming that evolutionary theory as he understood it at made his belief in a creator God even firmer, he was a devout theist.

equally, theoretical physics is at times little more than the scientists equivelent of a "God of the Gaps" which is so criticised in theism. Hawking would tell you that there are multiple universes and ours is just one of them, explaining how chance could produce us, but there is no proof or reason to believe this than there is when philosophers such as Aquinas present God as the logically necessary first cause of the universe.

kids should be educated in an unbiased manner which is agnostic in nature, allowing them to make their own decision. were religion so illogical and easily disprooven, surely philosophers would not continue to debate God's existence as the logical conclusion would already be found. Academic study when taken as a whole is thoroughly agnostic, this should be reflected in teaching, let darwinism be taught as a "popular and likely theory" whilst creationism is taught as an alternative, and other lessons show that many moderates within all religions would agree that evolution and religion are seamlessly compatible.

Based on national sovereignty, I vote against the resolution.

All education should be private and no business of the government or that of the UN.

i've only been to the first and last pages of this argument (and it's all i've needed to read) to determine that this is a useless resolution. it does absolutely NOTHING! There are already resolutions in effect that accomplish this "right to learn evolutionary theory". in addition to the futility of the document:

it is specific to one belief.
claims the unproven existence of a diety to be fact, therefore nullifying all other belief
assumes that every being in NS is human
does not specify what an "evolutionary theory" is
uses RL data to assume the age of the NS world
claims there is a "need for member nations to allow students to learn about evolutionary theory"


and people are going to argue that people against this proposal are biased against an evolutionary theory, but this proposal is biased against every other belief! Vote against this resolution!

I like it, BUT there is one small glitch here, we didn't actually come fromt the chickens but from the "Outer Mongolian Web-Footed Albatross."

If we're going to teach it, let's teach it right hey !

Let's just say that we demand the right to learn the Theory of Poultrygenesis!

It is well known that the leader of the third reich refused to even discuss the possibility that humanoids were descended from fowl. This, by itself, is enough justification.

I am all for the promotion of the Evolution theory... but does it really fall under the catagory of 'human rights'? anyways, thats my 2 cents...

Really, though I have only read the first and last page (and I'm not the only one it seems), I can see that this resolution is pointless, discriminatory, ineffective, to do with RL (or not even that) and not NS, poorly written, liable to serious misinterpretation and also has an extremely badly rated in-game effect (significant? the "right" to not get tortured for learning about evolutionary theories?). I find it unfortunate that the regulation actually seems to be getting passed...

I like this proposal. It gives each nation its freedom to choose, but it also gives citizens the right to learn.

I like this proposal. It gives each nation its freedom to choose, but it also gives citizens the right to learn.

As I and others have stated, despite the title of the resolution, it does NOT give the right to learn but rather the right to teach.

The idea of "higher" versus "lower" has no place in evolutionary studies.

At risk of missing your irony, surely the basic rule of evolution centres around survival of the fittest.

So I can only conclude that your comment is an attempt to deflect the argument away from the many areas where the resolution is flawed.

As it happens, with widespread internet access in my nation, all my citizens can read this thread and therefore will have managed to learn enough to satisfy the proclaimed objectives of the Resolution. Another reason why the Resolution is unnecessary

The Princi pality of latveria will gladly accept and sall be voting yes on the proposal. In our nation science is the one true god.One that will out lie all others for the rest of etirnity

The Democratic Republic of Motafication understands the core of the resolution is to provide legal protections to educators who facillitate the scientific theory of evolution to their students.

Although this resolution is irrelevant, due to there being no laws that jail or punish educators for facillitation of the theory, this soverign body will vote in the affirmative as a symbolic action of support.

However, our great state reccomends that the author-state of the bill please refrain from cluttering our agenda with any more "symbolic" resolutions.

(OOC: Sorry if this is a double post but the forums were playing around with me yesterday and I can't be bothered reading the five new pages since then to see if my post actually made it on.)

The Blissful Realm of Tonca is voting against this resolution.

The main point seems to be preventing the punishment of anyone who chooses to teach evolutionary teach, which is very nice in theory. Unfortunately it seems to allow a 2nd grade music teach to ignore music and instead go on a great rant about evolution without fear of reprisal. A teacher who fails to teach the curriculum which they have been employed to teach should be subject to appropriate actions. This legislation says otherwise.

Other UN resolutions that protect freedom of speech and prevent discrimination based on school of thought seem to allow any UN citizen to stand on a corner and proclaim the virtues of evolution, or to publish material about evolution, without reprisal from the government. Or to quit their job teaching 2nd grade music and start an independent class teaching evolution! At best this resolution is redundant.

It has been previously stated in this thread that other resolutions cover part of this resolution. I think this logic is unsound for the following reasons:

1) UBR does not mention anything about teachers and students. Indeed according to UBR (UBR Article 6 which states "Article 6 -- No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses.")
teachers could still be imprisoned or exiled for teaching evolution if a government has outlawed teaching and learning about evolution.

2) You may claim that UBR Article 1 or 2 covers this proposal:

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

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference."

Article 1 explicitly deals with one's right to religious beliefs and in no way is the theory of evolution a matter of religious belief or worship. As for Article 2 it only protects individuals who make statements in public or through the media. It does not specifiy protection for teachers and students in the context of a classroom. Especially in government controlled schools.

3) The Universal Freedom of Choice is also a noble (albeit vague) resolution that covers choice behavior. Once again it does not protect teachers and students with regards to the subject of learning evolutionary theory. It could be interpreted that way but I doubt it could be used in defense of a teacher who has been fired or imprisoned for teaching evolution in the classroom. Furthermore it would not protect students from being punished for learning about evolutionary theory or requested to learn about evolutionary theory. The reason is that the UFC cannot violate UBR which states that in Article 6 -- "No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses." If it is an offense to teach or learn about evolutionary theory in the classroom but students and teachers persist in its study they will be justifably imprisoned or punished based on the UBR.

Regards,
Lucius Malfoy II
if that is the case, then this doesnt exactly cover it either. there is an escape clause inherantly built in, and can be easily covered up. in our interpretation of UBR, UFC and the other resolutions that we mentioned in a previous post (there was about 7, including the anti discrimination one just recently passed). also we dissagree with your point in reply in the post after this one that we quoted in that education curriculum is not a UN matter. if a country chooses not to teach evolution in its schools, we agree. we have duely noted the 'education for all' resolution, and one other (can not remember off the top of our head) regarding classroom conditions, and we agree with them, but thats where the UN stops as far as we are concerned in the education system. whilst we have nothing against the teaching of evolution in our classrooms, we are against the UN saying it has to be taught. also this sets a precident in that regards. if we have to teach evolution, some might say we have to teach creationism to, so everybody gets a choice. and also it opens the doors to other curriculum based resolutions too. the fact is, we admit that we are fence sitters in this national sovereignty issue, but when it comes to education and non-international issues, such as this, we fall heavily on their side.

I still don't understand,

A) Why this is an issue worthy of the UN's time.
B) How this something within the UN's authority.
C) Who told the supporters that people can't learn about evolution.

Just as the UN can't hope to enforce this drivel no nation member can enforce any ban on information at all. Sure some governments may try to outlaw the teaching of evolutionary theory but no one can succeed. If a person wants to learn about it they can and there is nothing a government can do about that. So why waste the UN's time and money on useless resolution like this?

I still don't understand,

A) Why this is an issue worthy of the UN's time.
B) How this something within the UN's authority.
C) Who told the supporters that people can't learn about evolution.

Just as the UN can't hope to enforce this drivel no nation member can enforce any ban on information at all. Sure some governments may try to outlaw the teaching of evolutionary theory but no one can succeed. If a person wants to learn about it they can and there is nothing a government can do about that. So why waste the UN's time and money on useless resolution like this?
actually, here are three points
1) whats to stop people from leaning about evolution through the system the ULC set up?
2) the main basis of the argument is based around teaching evolution. whats to say that the governments revoke the person's teaching accreditation? that is a massive loop hole that can be enforced by a strict nation. they might have the right to teach evolution, but they cant teach if they dont have accreditation. then what? a UN resolution to protect teaching accreditation? then a legitimate revokation can be overturned and someone who is deemed ill fit can still teach.
3)then comes the diverse nature of Nationstates and its many races. how can we prove that any one evolutionary theory is right? how can we prove that any evolutionary theory is right?
this is surrounded by too many questions (especially our legality questions that we probably should have rased before it went to quarum) to be passed.

:headbang:

Seriously If you are going to impose on my country what I can and can not teach our citizentry, why not also impose the right for my citizens to blow their noses in public and

Hey maybe give the right for citizens to bang their heads against a wall whenever the urge hits--get it hits.

Hey we can place monitors from the UN in our countries so that when someone blows their nose and it is a little louder than normal so that another citizen says "do you mind?" that then the monitor can arrest the complainer for not allowing the nose blower to blow his/her nose in peace

Enough said

:(

Unfortunately there are enough idiots that go along with how the wind blows to say "hey what a wonderful and thoughtful resolution"

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

Hey, what a wonderful and thoughtful resolution. Fatus Maximus is voting for it. :D