NationStates Jolt Archive

My nation, and every one else's for that matter, should never be told how to handle its education policies. Religion is so involved in this regardless what people say that theocracies and religo-dictatorships are infringed upon in this horribe resolution. If this passes a group of intelligent voters should band together to repeal it.

Levi DeLaRoche, Ministre de la patrie en Franco-Philia

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.

I know we all have the right to free speech here, but that's not enough. I want the right to understand what everyone says, no matter how little sense it makes.

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.
which brings us back to it directly affecting curriculum. the way you are saying it, if there is lack of interest in the nation, it doesnt have to be taught. what if, out of the millions of people, one school teacher wants to teach evolution. it then means it has to be taught. the UN has no place in individual nation's curriculum, and this is in no way an international issue.

I think that children should be able to learn as much as they can. If a school refuses to teach the theory or evolution, it is denying its students valuable knowledge. Just because those people in charge of the curriculum have no desire to teach evolution does NOT in any way mean that the teachers do not wish to teach evolution or that the students don't want to learn it.

Also, to be fair, evolution has much more hard evidence than creationism; one has fossils, current and historical populations of species, and genetics, and the other has the Bible. I'm not saying that it's wrong to believe in creationism, but I do believe that it's wrong not to teach evolution. Otherwise, we are teaching our children never to question anything, and never to pay attention to any evidence around them.

what if, out of the millions of people, one school teacher wants to teach evolution. it then means it has to be taught.
No, it means that that schoolteacher has the right to teach it.

No, it means that that schoolteacher has the right to teach it.
if that is the case then, the government can revoke their teaching accreditation, and inprison them that way. it is in no violation of the proposed resolution, and is the biggest loop hole i have seen so far, meaning this proposal is not worth the paper it is written on.

if that is the case then, the government can revoke their teaching accreditation, and inprison them that way. it is in no violation of the proposed resolution, and is the biggest loop hole i have seen so far, meaning this proposal is not worth the paper it is written on.
Which is exactly the reason I'm authoring a resolution to outlaw political imprisonment. Should be up tomorrow.

Which is exactly the reason I'm authoring a resolution to outlaw political imprisonment. Should be up tomorrow.
i dont see how being arrested for 'teaching without acreditation' would fall under the area of political imprisonment.

I think that children should be able to learn as much as they can. If a school refuses to teach the theory or evolution, it is denying its students valuable knowledge. Just because those people in charge of the curriculum have no desire to teach evolution does NOT in any way mean that the teachers do not wish to teach evolution or that the students don't want to learn it.

except the proposal only limits the government's role in educational curricullum. A school principal could ban it and not be affected by this law.

Also, to be fair, evolution has much more hard evidence than creationism; one has fossils, current and historical populations of species, and genetics, and the other has the Bible. I'm not saying that it's wrong to believe in creationism, but I do believe that it's wrong not to teach evolution. Otherwise, we are teaching our children never to question anything, and never to pay attention to any evidence around them.

:headbang: (I like that little guy). We need a proposal that UN resolutions can't be about emotional issues! Everyone is looking at this and saying Evolution = good, creationism = bad: I'll vote for it!!!111!!!eleven! YOU'RE countries citizens may believe that and that's fine, they can inact laws all day long dealing with your educational curriculum. OUR children? No there's YOUR children, whom you are free to teach whatever you want. And there's MY children, whom I should be free to teach that we came from pink monkey fairies if I want to without the UN butting in.

Fortunately for us pink monkey fairy believers, the proposal as written can be effectively ignored so its useless and should be voted down on that alone.

As I said in an eariler post its directly against Resolution #8 in that it ties an elected government's hands in something the citizens should have a say in.

And finally another good reason to vote it down, what if evolution is proved scientifically to be wrong? No religion involved, or another scientific theory with just as much evidence is brought forth? Would we continue to teach an outdated theory.

For the record the people of Brown Stick Men have no problem with evolution (even though we are deeply religious), and we are not voting against this because we are thinking with our religion in mind as some here have suggested. No we are voting against this because its at best unenforceable and at worst a threat to individual soverignty. We urge all nations to step back and look at the proposal and realize its a bad idea to mix science and politics and vote this down.

Also Brown Stick Men would welcome a proposal stating the right to educational freedom, as long as it is written in such a way that governments can have their own educational policies but individuals or organizations have the right to opt out. More power to the people, not the UN.

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.

OOC: Is this an in-character response or out-of-character, because if this is authentic, I just have to remind you... it's a game! Relax (but then again, seems my character's rather convincing, so I appreciate the critique ;) ).

OOC2: Damn and bullshit are, in the right context, perfectly acceptable words for this board. Shit, I've said fuck a hundred times here without reprocussion in the general discussion board.

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. Stupendous Badassness

Life on Earth has occurred by descent through modification. Often during evolutionary history the loss of a particular trait has been an evolutionary advantage. Evolution is not all about gaining more complex traits. Indeed roaches are extremely complex creatures highly adapted to their specific environment. Bats and dolphins have echolocation abilities (projecting sounds to determine the location of objects) that are evolved for their specific environments and traits that we do not appear to have in great abundance. Surely this does not mean we are less evolved. Humans exploit their environments and linguistic arguments in highly unethical ways (and self-deceive themselves regarding the moral reasons for doing so) - I do not feel this is an indicator of a species on the top of an "evolutionary ladder".

Present day living organisms are on a branching tree rather than a ladder. This means we (contemporary organisms) are cousins rather than walking and breathing fossils of extinct ancestors. This is the view you apparently prefer. I prefer to see all organisms as products of their specific environments. In this sense the study of evolution is primarily an environmentalist discipline.

I know we all have the right to free speech here, but that's not enough. I want the right to understand what everyone says, no matter how little sense it makes.

Unfortunately, it is not within the power of the UN to confer wisdom or understanding on the citizens of its members. This requires a certain intelligence and wisdom which is, depending on your view, either inate or acquired through learning and experience.

At this point, I, for one, fail to understand why people are voting for this resolution. Beyond the emotional reaction which sees learning as a good thing and that objective learning is even better, I have yet to see any coherent responses to the main problems with the resolution.

Now if the UN could give me the right to understand some of its voters...........

Life on Earth has occurred by descent through modification.... snip
okay, here is one of the contentious issues. life on Earth.... which earth? and what relevence does how the inhabitants on one earth think they came to being affect the inhabitants of many of the other planets the UN nations inhabit? this is your belief. you may share it with other nations, but it is your belief. we, as a whole, have nothing against evolution. some, in our frosbitarian province do, because they know the descended from the diety Shiva and can prove it (we are still trying to work out where she came from in the first place). then you get the DLE empire, which sadly is no longer in the UN. where did robots evolve from? do you think that one is going to pick up a chunk of ore and say 'this is your ancester, son'. the thing is NS and NSUN nations are so diverse, saying that you have to allow a teaching, even if one person believes it is rediculus. actually, rephrase that, dedicating a resolution to one teaching is rediculus. then, as i have brought up before, this is already covered by quite a few resolutions (go a few pages back to all the ones i found) and also they can circumvent it by stripping the teacher of their acreditation then imprisoning them when they try to teach. and what relevance does this have to the UN anyway? none. it is for a national, or in our case provincial education board to decide, not the UN.

To add to the list above, the Colony of Barnabas Butterbur is in Middle Earth where there is no such concept as evolution. All life came from Iluvatar.
Elves, in particular, have DEVOLVED in relation to their ancestors and time spent from Valinor.

Men also have devolved from the High Race of Numenor.

Some races have been created and bred in secret, notably, orcs, trolls, half-orcs etc but this would not explain what you call Evolution Theory

Notwithstanding, the Evolution Theory Teachers are welcome to come to my nation but would probably be laughed out of town or presumed to have drunk too much of my beer.

Myxx claims there is RL data cited in the proposal making it null and void. This is untrue. The 3.5 billion year old NS planet (stated in the proposal) is a role-playing estimate and open to scientific debate. Not sure when intelligent life occurred here though.

For your information the estimated age of RL Earth is 4.6 billion years old, possibly formed about the same time as the rest of the solar system.


uses RL data to assume the age of the NS world
Vote against this resolution![/B]

To add to the list above, the Colony of Barnabas Butterbur is in Middle Earth where there is no such concept as evolution. All life came from Iluvatar.
Elves, in particular, have DEVOLVED in relation to their ancestors and time spent from Valinor.

Men also have devolved from the High Race of Numenor.

Some races have been created and bred in secret, notably, orcs, trolls, half-orcs etc but this would not explain what you call Evolution Theory

Notwithstanding, the Evolution Theory Teachers are welcome to come to my nation but would probably be laughed out of town or presumed to have drunk too much of my beer.

Very interesting. I am most interested in the elves. Looking forward to hearing more about the natural history of your region over a pint.

Side-note: One incredible advantage in the NS universe is that the biological diversity here may far surpass what is known on RL Earth.

Although I do worry about resource limitations. Considering the ballooning NS population growth, what are the limits? The infamous NS crash (Wed, 27 Apr 2005) called the "Great Disk Space Disaster of 2005" may be a warning sign.

snip The 3.5 billion year old NS planet (stated in the proposal) snip
again, you do realise that there is more than one planet in NS, that some nations are actually made up of many planets, and the fact that in that single phrase you have just alienated them all?

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.
Did you read the resolution? The only part that is not preamble states (in loose terms): "The NSUN will make a big frowny face at anyone who disagrees with this." Considering that the NSUN is already made of governments who are free to give their opinion, there is no point to this resolution.

On the side of merits, this goes against national rights of how to rule people (enforcing thought crimes is bordering on game mechanic violations). Furthermore, the scientific method (whatever rendition you prefer) goes directly against the teaching of one theory, but rather is about scientific inquiry which is not addressed in this resolution.

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

Nations already had the right to choose. That right is limited somewhat by this resolution though. And there's no right to learn. All there is is that you can't put in your law that teaching evolution is forbidden. You can still teach that it's wrong though. Or only appoint teachers that don't teach it. This resolution has no effect whatsoever. And that's sad, because now a pro-evolution nation like mine is forced to vote against this resolution because it's a waste of UN time.

Also, my nation regrets to see that another point we feared has come true. This resolution divides between religious and non-religious nations, which goes against the spirit of cooperation of the NS United Nations.

We therefor urge all nations to vote AGAINST this resolution.

:rolleyes:

Sooooo what this proposal is...well after reading the debate...its someone who wants to run their mouth.

After it is passed we just ignore it and nothing happens????

Then why the heck are we having our time wasted with some delegate running their mouth in the UN making us vote on something that does nothing???

--Because thats exactly how nazism started. Voice some stupid ideas that mean nothing, and then one day with a little law...BANG!!!! Anyone with Israeli blood gets tortured to death.

How can we get this resolution repealed after it is passed?

And all races (especially from middle earth) are welcomed in my Kingdom (krass commercial)

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

I think that it is every nation's right to surpress any and all ideas that it deems dangerous or unworthy, or should consider it to be bad for the nation and people in any other way. Therefore I have voted against this resolution as I consider it to surpress a nation's sovereignity and hope that all nations will do the same.

I'm alarmed at how well this resolution is being received.

First off, I am very much in favor of evolution being taught, as it is the only scientific theory that bears any resemblance to reality.

Having said that, this resolution – as written here – has some serious prolems.

Firstly; 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;
This is completely inappropriate. Is the UN now proposing to include lessons in theology in its edicts. This kind of inflammatory rhetoric is offensive and has no place here.

CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes.
This is exactly what it does. Despite saying the contrary, this resolution imposes a uniform curriculum on nations unless their reason for not teaching evolution is cultural indifference. This would impose a uniform curriculum upon uniform cultures.

There’s also something almost funny here – the only nations that such a resolution would impact would be authoritarian regimes – do you no suppose that these nations could generate some ‘cultural disinterest’ pretty much on command? Should they do so, who would enforce this proposal, the United Nations Middle School Marines?


MANDATES a strong symbolical disapproval

This is basically an admission that the resolution is toothless an unenforceable. Also, I’m not sure that symbolical is really a word.

I appreciate the intent of this resolution, but it just doesn’t work. This is the responsibility of individual nations. Let’s be clear on one thing too, the importance applied to the teaching of evolution is very much a cultural one. Nations should be free to come to this level of scientific discourse on their own.

A nation jailing teachers will ignore this anyway.

This is one in a long line of ill-conceived but well-intentioned resolutions that gets voted up because it appeals to our sense of advancement. The fact that this resolution will accomplish nothing is overlooked.

I implore my fellow delegates to reject this resolution and I ask the author to submit one which is more generally balanced.

I implore my fellow delegates to reject this resolution and I ask the author to submit one which is more generally balanced.
bad luck mate, but the resolution is already at vote :( the best we can hope for, with the way things are going, is to mount a repeal. my attempt to get this removed on illegality basis was refuted due to the techinical problems it would cause game wise.....

Dear misters Delegates, Dear Members States,

I belive that this is a good resolution. I've voted for it.
The Evolutionary theory must be taught in every school. I supposed that was a logic thing, but I was in error because I've discovered the oppost.

I have phoned immediately to the minister of Education to control that every religious school respect the national program.

Distincts Regards

The Prime Minister of Holy Republic of Saturniam

That the citizens get to learn about the evolution is fine by me, what disturbes me is "Teachers of the idea should also be free from imprisonment and persecution." If this is enforced, it could (and probably would) be read as "Teachers of the idea are above the law", and if there is no clarification on this part, it would lead to criminals applying to become teachers so they can do whatever they want.

The Evolutionary theory must be taught in every school. I supposed that was a logic thing, but I was in error because I've discovered the oppost.

A vote against this proposal is not a vote against evolution in the classroom. I agree that teaching evolution is a good thing, but this resolution would not cause evolution to be taught in one single classroom.

The kind of nations that would have the debate aren't even covered as they probably aren't threatening to imprison anyone.

Sadly, the RL parrallels that come to mind seem to be having sway, but the RL instances fall into 2 groups

1) nations that are totalitarian and would ignore this.

2) nations that are civil societies, not threatening to imprison any teacher, and therefore exempt from this proposal.

This proposal has written itself out of relevance. It will accomplish nothing.

Many have tried to supress the freedom to teach evolution and if it continues then I do think regional or UN action is needed. HOWEVER, this resolution was poorly concieved and will only be a detriment gamewise and to further resolutions because it sets a bad precedent. I do see the point some are making about every nation having a right to choose, so the UN should be uninvolved. I will think about what I have read and might change my vote of "yes."

A nation should not be aloud to torture or imprison people who teach evolution. But, the UN should not force countries to allow teachers to teach impressionable children evolution. Each country should be alloud to say you can learn about evolution in libraries and out side of school but it will not be taught in school. If this law is passed then there should be a corresponding law that states countries can not outlaw the theory of creation as well as other theories on the existence of the earth and or universe. The Holy Empire of Hose Head is drasticly against this proposal.

I support much of this resolution, including the principles behind it. However, I take extreme issue with the third preambulatory clause. Earth is approximately 4.57 billion years old, according to the latest studies available to me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth). Furthermore, this clause attempts to force a monotheistic viewpoint on member nations, presuming the existence of one God and arguing that He is likely benevolent. Given the tremendous amount of suffering in the world today, I find the evidence to that effect to be sadly lacking.

Therefore, I am constrained to vote against. In this age of the United Nations, there is no reason to settle for a subpar resolution.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Lord Evif sits down and immediately rises again, raising two fingers.
The TALLY CLERK. The representative from Goobergunchia III?
Mr. EVIF. Nay.
The TALLY CLERK. Goobergunchia III's vote against Right to Learn about Evolution has been noted.

I support much of this resolution, including the principles behind it. However, I take extreme issue with the third preambulatory clause. Earth is approximately 4.57 billion years old, according to the latest studies available to me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth). Furthermore, this clause attempts to force a monotheistic viewpoint on member nations, presuming the existence of one God and arguing that He is likely benevolent. Given the tremendous amount of suffering in the world today, I find the evidence to that effect to be sadly lacking.

Therefore, I am constrained to vote against. In this age of the United Nations, there is no reason to settle for a subpar resolution.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Lord Evif sits down and immediately rises again, raising two fingers.
The TALLY CLERK. The representative from Goobergunchia III?
Mr. EVIF. Nay.
The TALLY CLERK. Goobergunchia III's vote against Right to Learn about Evolution has been noted.

Which Earth are you talking about? RL Earth? It has come to my attention there are multiple Earths and Solar Systems in Nation States RP (Check out the forum - I think this started late 2004).

This also raises the issue of RL data in proposals. 3.5 billion years is surely incorrect for the RL Earth (I previously pointed this out in this thread) therefore the proposal is not using real-life references. For those who are ant-Darwin there is no reference to Darwin either (a real life figure also a city eh?).

Others have complained that evolution is not defined. Well evolution has a simple meaning according to many dictionaries (is there a RP NS dictionary available?). How about "change over time".

Regarding the god statement. Some nationstates may believe that god is an sociological construction which is fine. There the statement could be interpreted as the artifical social construction of god would be unlikely to plant evidence of historical change over time consistent with a NS Earth of approximately 3.5 billion years old. For those who are deists or theists god could mean a number of things. Theists argue that god intervenes into the affairs of the planet; while deists argue that god started the whole universe and then lets nature and humans take their own course via free will (and does not intervene). The unspecified god in this proposal could very well be interpreted as multiple deities (why not?). Regarding malevolent intervention of a deity it may be that it did occur in some or all nation states. I wonder how many nation states believe that a deity has intervened into their nations in a malevolent manner. Although I think this question is not relevant to the core purpose of the proposal.

Other proposals could address definitions and teachings of acceptable and unacceptable relgious beliefs. For example if there was a nation state that believed on religious grounds that sacrificing members of outgroup religions to their god (s) - the UN would not allow this under freedom of religion resolutions. Freedom of religion appears to only be allowed insofar that it does not violate other UN resolutions.

I think origins of species and nations is of interest to NS participants (I can imagine RP-ers would have a field day with multiple evolutionary stories regarding their special capacities). In conclusion protecting free inquiry is important and there is nothing in this proposal that violates it.

I am surprised that so many people are defending this res. so ardently. The intent of the res. itself is indeed noble. But the res. is terribly written, tries to be funny (and fails), and ultimately raises more questions than it solves. To those of you who are defending this res: the fact that you have to go to such great lengths shows me only that there are serious problems with the res. itself.

The fact remains that the UN is not the world police. That is not in debate. So then, the UN cannot mandate what soverign nations and regions teach. Though personally for evolution, this resolution would strip nations of their freedoms. I hold to vote down this resolution. :sniper:

This great land of Aummua will support this proposal, but we make it known that we are concerned with there being too much legislation.

I'm going to have to say no on this proposal and shoot it down.

:mp5:

So then, the UN cannot mandate what soverign nations and regions teach.
Can too.

*Slides a small card over to Neoteny*

http://img112.echo.cx/img112/2601/readthefaq5yd.jpg

I'm going to have to say no on this proposal and shoot it down.

:mp5:

Normally, I would offer nuking the proposal author as an option, but I have been rather impressed by the way Mr. Malfoy has handled himself in the debate over his resolution, and would not like to see him go.

I believe that it makes sense for everybody to learn about every major religion's theory of creation and sciences theroy of evolution, EQUALLY. Just as much time should be spent learning about the theory of evolution as is spent learing about the Hindu theory of creation. Also, just as much time should be spent learing about the christian and muslim and buddist and hindu and jewish theorys of evolution. See what i mean?

Can too. *Slides over a small card to Neoteny* http://img112.echo.cx/img112/2601/readthefaq5yd.jpg

Alright, my mistake . But even if the UN does set up rules for its memebers ect., it should not completely mandate everything that goes on in nations. If it does then isn't the UN like a large government and all the "nations" just little city-states? A line needs to be drawn.

Alright, my mistake . But even if the UN does set up rules for its memebers ect., it should not completely mandate everything that goes on in nations. If it does then isn't the UN like a large government and all the "nations" just little city-states? A line needs to be drawn.

I agree that a line needs to be drawn. See my stickied post entitled National Sovereignty and the NationStates United Nations (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8681146&postcount=4) for ideas on where and how to draw that line.

Alright, my mistake . But even if the UN does set up rules for its memebers ect., it should not completely mandate everything that goes on in nations. If it does then isn't the UN like a large government and all the "nations" just little city-states? A line needs to be drawn.
I completely agree. I just wanted to use one of Tex's cards, that's all. ;)

Proof:
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.
§ 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.This resolution is a JOKE. There is no reason the UN should be passing this! In addition to the fact that it is specific to a certain belief (whose popularity—or lack of—has not and cannot be proven), therefore belitting all other beliefs and uses real world "facts" to argue its case. Vote against this resolution! It will do absolutely nothing!!!

Proof:
This resolution is a JOKE. There is no reason the UN should be passing this! In addition to the fact that it is specific to a certain belief (whose popularity—or lack of—has not and cannot be proven), therefore belitting all other beliefs and uses real world "facts" to argue its case. Vote against this resolution! It will do absolutely nothing!!!
if this hasnt been repealed by the time i return (it looks like passing at this point, and i will be away) i will be willing to help work on a repeal, because there is so much that can be covered that makes for an easy repeal

The basic argumjent here is one of collective policy and individual policy. The establishment of the UN is with the idea of a world parliamentry system, so all members have the right to speak out but to follow the majority rules. But of course in order to protect small minorities there must be some rles. I would therefore propose (if not already in place) a resolution on a UN Charter, establishing the fule powers of the UN. It may be argued that this is already in place in the sence that the UN is a functioning democratic body, but I would rest a little easier if it was put before the General Assembly.http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=8721781# :headbang:

Last time I checked(5/7/05) the popular vote is 46% for and 40% against.

However the delegate vote is 3:1 for the proposal.

It appears our delgates are not voting the voice of the people

The Republic of Skredtch is passionately devoted to the scientific investigation of factual truth. To the best of our understanding, the general theory of evolution either supported or not contradicted by any known relevant evidence. We recognize the theory as being accurate, and it is actively taught in our schools.

However, we also note that our culture is particularly receptive to ideas supported by physical evidence rather than by cultural tradition. Other societies, some of which may be UN members, require unflagging belief in creation mythology which cannot be resolved with the theory of evolution. The immediate introduction of evolutionary theory into such a nation's educational curriculum could prove severely disruptive. So, although we already abide by the terms of this proposal, we cannot support it any more than we could support a resolution that requires UN members to embrace any other specific explanation of the origin or nature of the physical world, regardless of the demonstrability of the veracity of that ideology.

Last time I checked(5/7/05) the popular vote is 46% for and 40% against.

However the delegate vote is 3:1 for the proposal.

It appears our delgates are not voting the voice of the people

The poll doesn't necessarily have to correlate with the vote. For one, the poll was set up long before this resolution went up to vote. For another thing, the poll's voters are self-selecting to a greater degree than the voters for the proposal. Finally, delegates typically have some system where they vote in line with the "regional consensus", whether it's a formalized thing or not, but I ultimately can't split up my 13 votes - they get cast for one side or another (or I abstain, but that's very rare).

The Borderlands of Madrapour support this resolution.

The evolution theory is no "belief system" but a sound, feasible scientific theory. Prosecution of teachers and scientists who teach about evolution theory is a inacceptable viaolation of fundamental human rights and the freedom of scientific research.

The only thing we'd like to add, is that we think the resolution could be more demanding and ban religiuos groups and beliefs that oppose the freedom of scientific research by enforcing the spread of absurd creation myths.

Religion is opium to the people. Long life Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative.

I'm going to repeat this earlier post as a lot of of are proudly declaring your support for evolution without realizing that this resolution will do nothing to advance it.

A vote against this proposal is not a vote against evolution in the classroom. I agree that teaching evolution is a good thing, but this resolution would not cause evolution to be taught in one single classroom.

The kind of nations that would have the debate aren't even covered as they probably aren't threatening to imprison anyone.

Sadly, the RL parrallels that come to mind seem to be having sway, but the RL instances fall into 2 groups

1) nations that are totalitarian and would ignore this.

2) nations that are civil societies, not threatening to imprison any teacher, and therefore exempt from this proposal.

This proposal has written itself out of relevance. It will accomplish nothing.

The vast majority of Scandinavian opinion is FOR this resolution.

Our nations are however confused at this requiring a resolution, as it is not an issue in our region which is almost totally free from religious fundamentalism. We do however recognise that in some parts of the world religious fundamentalism is growing. Borgoa is strongly for freedom of religious practise, but we never believe that this should be allowed to interfere with freedom of education or with scientific study. This is why our government, as delegate of Scandinavia, has supported the passage of this resolution.

We do however hope that following resolutions will deal with more pressing issues, for instance those relating to more pressing instances of human rights and also the environment. A priority for our government is to see "Right to Self-Protection' repealed as soon as possible as it clearly endorses violence and vigilantism.

Foreign Minister
Nordic Democratic Republic of Borgoa
Regional Delegate of Scandinavia at the United Nations

I'm going to repeat this earlier post as a lot of of are proudly declaring your support for evolution without realizing that this resolution will do nothing to advance it.

The UN is not really an organization that ejects member states for resolution violations. Furthermore, due to restrictions on enforcement much of what the UN does with regards to education is to foster and encourage particular values among the community of nations (e.g., environmental sustainability, discouraging discrimination, protecting national sovereignty, prevention of disease etc.). The dissemination of information is a key role played by the UN and is important in the long-term. Skeptics claim that the UN's hands are tied (e.g., some powerful member states take the law into their own hands and invade sovereign countries under questionable circumstances even when the UN does not approve). Some critics of the UN suggest that the organization is emasculated (a rather sexist term to say the least) in that it cannot invade countries perceived as egregious violators. However attractive this "hawk strategy" may be for the more hostile nations among us, the UN must maintain its status as one of the only international organizations for the advancement of peace through mutual understanding.

I have not read the entrie forum, so if this has been addressed I apologize.

I do not personally support the evolution theory. But I will do nothing to stop or support it. As i see, you say it will not affect me. So should I do nothing? I'm really confused. The title is very misleading.

The UN is not really an organization that ejects member states for resolution violations.Actually the only reason someone is ejected from the UN is for a rule violation.
Furthermore, due to restrictions on enforcement much of what the UN does with regards to education is to foster and encourage particular values among the community of nations (e.g., environmental sustainability, discouraging discrimination, protecting national sovereignty, prevention of disease etc.).Restrictions on enforcement? Around here, if it passes, it's enforced.
The dissemination of information is a key role played by the UN and is important in the long-term. Skeptics claim that the UN's hands are tied (e.g., some powerful member states take the law into their own hands and invade sovereign countries under questionable circumstances even when the UN does not approve). Some critics of the UN suggest that the organization is emasculated (a rather sexist term to say the least) in that it cannot invade countries perceived as egregious violators. However attractive this "hawk strategy" may be for the more hostile nations among us, the UN must maintain its status as one of the only international organizations for the advancement of peace through mutual understanding.And now you're talking about the RL UN.

Bob shows his hard.
http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/readthefaq.jpg http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/readthestickies.jpg http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/thenotthesamecard.jpg

Actually the only reason someone is ejected from the UN is for a rule violation.[/img]

Not sure if you willfully misread statements or you interpret what is written through "mind-forged manacles". I hope the latter since we are all prone to that error at times. I wrote ejection for "resolution" violation, surely this would be a strong action against nations that continously violate UN resolutions. I realize ejections are not performed for resolution violations.

Sidenote: Ejections are seldom used by the RL UN despite resolutions calling for such actions (ejections from RL UN commissions do occur). Perhaps because ejection alienates a nation making it less likely for the resolution-violator to eventually change its ways. Ostracism may be less useful than communication (same goes for NS UN).

Restrictions on enforcement? Around here, if it passes, it's enforced

And now you're talking about the RL UN...[/img]

Enforcement restrictions clearly exist. For example some could argue that the NS UN cannot (or does not) eject, punish, invade, or fine resolution violators. There are great reasons why it does not (alluded to above, ostracism may be less profitable for peace than communication).

By the way I was not talking about the RL UN when I wrote that 'I believe the mission of the UN is advancing peace through mutual understanding', rather I was basing my assessment on the type of resolutions submitted and passed in the NS UN. It seems to me that the parallels between the two (RL and NS) are quite real but not surprising.

I fear we are talking past one another which is not productive. I detect you envision the NS UN as something different than I do. Perhaps you see the NS UN as a forum for maintaining national sovereignity (regardless of the long term consequences)? I imagine the NS UN as a force for fostering international peace through mutual understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong about your stance.

Lucius Malfoy II

Cobdenia has clear reasons that it is against this resolution:
1) It does not transcend national boundaries
2) It is not a civil rights issue; not knowing about resolution won't kill me.
Therefore it is not a UN matter
3) The NSUN comprises of many states of many planets, religions, empires and technology. A future tach nation may well have proof that our existence came about through a theory that modern tech nations have no hope of guessing, forcing them to allow the teaching of Darwinist evolution would be akin to forcing modern tech nations to allow the teaching of Lamarkism (which was prooved false) or indeed the teaching of Biblical creationism as science. Also, some fantasy tech nations may indeed have been created by a God; in which case evolution would most definately be false.

The people of East Columbus have debated this issue amongst themselves, and have come to the following conclusions:

1. Can East Columbus conduct business with a country that allows the teaching of Evolution in it's schools? Answer: Yes.

2. Can East Columbus conduct business with a country that does not allow the teaching of Evolution in it's schools? Answer: Yes.

3. Is (or is not) the teaching of evolution in a country's school systems a direct or indirect threat to the soverignty or security of East Columbus? Answer: No.

4. Would East Columbus welcome a UN review or involvement of the curriculum taught in it's schools? Answer: No.

5. Should a country have an inherent right to set school curriculum, without outside interference or review, for the people within its borders? Answer: Yes.

6. Does East Columbus support the teaching of evolution in the classroom? Answer: Yes.

7. Does East Columbus have the right to demand of other countries that they freely allow evolution to be taught in their classrooms? Answer: No.

The teaching (or suppression) of the theory of evolution does not appear to directly affect the secuirty or soverignty of East Columbus. We do not believe that this vote has any place in the United Nations. As with abortion, doctor assisted suicide, and the right to bear arms, evolution is just one small part of a much larger issue. East Columbus would not presume to tell any country how to decide these issues for themselves. Each country must decide on their own.

Because East Columbus believes this debate is outside the scope of the UN, and treads upon the soverignty of independent nations everywhere, we recommend a "No" vote on this issue.

East Columbus welcomes open and sincere dialog on serious issues around the world. We look forward to our continued work with our friends in the UN on any issue they would wish to bring to us.

I have phoned immediately to the minister of Education to control that every religious school respect the national program.


And doing so immediatly puts you at odds with several other UN resolutions regarding freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and citizen rule. This resolution has nothing at all to do with religious schools since such a school typically isn't going to be interested in teaching evolution in the first place.

It tries to get government run schools to teach evolution but as many many people here have pointed out, it doesn't do that either.

THE RESOLUTION DOES NOTHING WHY CAN'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT????

The Nation of Flibby and the Region of Braingladian wholeheartedly rejects this proposal. It is not for the UN to tell us what we can and can not teach our children. We are a religious state, guarding the fact that evolution has not been proved, and that there is sufficient evidence for the consideration of Intelligent Creation.

With this, the United Nations has overstepped its boundaries. I urge others to reject this proposal on similar grounds.

Some critics of the UN suggest that the organization is emasculated (a rather sexist term to say the least) in that it cannot invade countries perceived as egregious violators. However attractive this "hawk strategy" may be for the more hostile nations among us, the UN must maintain its status as one of the only international organizations for the advancement of peace through mutual understanding.

The capacity to invade or intimidate a nation violating the proposal is not the point. The point is that the only nations likely to violate it (by imprisoning educators) can also conjure upt the standard of 'cultural indifference' at will.

Should this happen, does the UN the propose to send out teams of athropologists to evaluate the veracity of the claim?

This proposal is nobly motivated but is just terribly constructed. It will not accomplish anything, it will be an innefectual and symbolic act.

We can do better.

Is there any way we can approve the resolution now instead of waiting until Sunday to do it. I'm just saying the vote margin is so huge that it's insurmountable and here we are, still listening to a 4 to 1 minority. I'm just saying while they have a right to voice their opinions, I don't want to hear about it for a whole week. There has to be a way to speed up resolutions. :cool:

The Nation of Flibby and the Region of Braingladian wholeheartedly rejects this proposal. It is not for the UN to tell us what we can and can not teach our children. We are a religious state, guarding the fact that evolution has not been proved, and that there is sufficient evidence for the consideration of Intelligent Creation.

With this, the United Nations has overstepped its boundaries. I urge others to reject this proposal on similar grounds.

While it is true that the theory evolution has not be clearly and decisively proven, nor has the theory of intelligent creation. They are both theories at best, which is part of the reason that both should be freely explored in order to further determine which may or may not be true. This is of course only wherever desired by the people of each nation and of the United Nations.

THE RESOLUTION DOES NOTHING WHY CAN'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT????

Must be something in the water.

But here we are, getting ready to see another hollow and pointless resolution go through with a resounding majority because it correctly assaults the proper sentiments with the proper buzzwords. The fact that it mandates its own effectiveness down to nothing has been neatly overlooked.

Sad.

if u don't understand smalll letters i will give it to u in bold.

EVOLUTION IS CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT NEEDS TO BE BANNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Hello, The Holy Empire of Fantasia Fantasma Will not be supporting this right to learn evoulutionary theory proposal. I sent out a poll to my people and all of them voted against it. I will not be teaching any evolution in the education system in my nation. :cool:

Brote has voted against this Resolution.

It is a hollow and empty gesture that is poorly consturcted. It's a nice sentiment, but has no power.

As has been noted earlier the Resolution has no enforcement, and even worse has no real 'teeth.'

Again Brote strongly believes in the ideals of Free Education, and modernism, however, we do not feel that another empty resolution is the awnser. Perhaps a better constucted proposal would be supported by Brote.

if u don't understand smalll letters i will give it to u in bold.

EVOLUTION IS CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT NEEDS TO BE BANNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
But, if you arn't religius, and you would like too know about evolution, then what would you be told, that god created everything and there was no evolution?!?!?!!? If you don't believe in god then you wouldn't beleive that, so if yoou couldn't teach the theory of evolution, what else is there to say to the kids???? Moral os speech: THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!! :p

Originally posted by Colonoria:
EVOLUTION IS CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT NEEDS TO BE BANNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


no. its not crazy and it shouldn't be banned. Its closed minded people like you who are crazy and should be banned from society.

Must be something in the water.

But here we are, getting ready to see another hollow and pointless resolution go through with a resounding majority because it correctly assaults the proper sentiments with the proper buzzwords. The fact that it mandates its own effectiveness down to nothing has been neatly overlooked.

Sad.

It is not sad at all and I am getting sad by your continued pessimism. My plan based on the support of the right to learn evolution proposal is to develop an organization for the general advancement of education and free inquiry. The organization may be similar to UNESCO.

It will take some time to draft a proposal that is original and warrants the creation of a new organization in the UN. However I think the long-term payoffs for human rights, mutual understanding between cultures, and peace are well worth the effort. The organization may be called the United Nations Advancement Committee for Science and Intercultural Studies (UNACSIS).

Lucius Malfoy II

Evolution is part of a religion. While it is congruous with most scientific theory, it is nonetheless not a fundamental truth. To assume that this is true is to assume that, A) inductive reasoning is a valid form of reasoning (for we have no indisputable proof of evolution) and that B) the universe follows specific laws that are derived by the study of science. While to many of us these seem like acceptable assumptions, they are not necessarily true, especially if one considers that truth is in most cases a subjective matter.

Creationism and evolution both present explanations for the origin of species, and both have evidence of some sort to support them. Each is valid to many people. Thus, to enforce the teaching of evolution but discourage that of creationism and other religions' explanations would be to discriminate against all religions but science. Surely, a progressive body such as the U.N. can understand the need to eliminate religious discrimination on the part of the government.

Fix this proposal. The right to learn evolution should not be stifled, but it must not be mandated, unless the teaching of all other significant religions is mandated as well.

A) inductive reasoning is a valid form of reasoning (for we have no indisputable proof of evolution)
Proof by induction is valid, provided the original statement can be met by the rquirements of the inductive process. As to what this has to do with Evolution (given that proof by induction is usually associated with maths), I haven't a clue.

I know I jumping into this debate rather late, but I just want to give my point of view on this.

My main problem with this not so much what it says it does, but the language it uses to tell the reader what the proposal does. The proposal (especially the second part) goes well beyond just mandating that people have the right to learn about evolution. It actualy condemns peoples firmly held religous beliefs. That is not something I want put into UN law.

I am uncomfortable with the implications of this proposal, even though in principle it is something that I agree with.
(a) Education should be based on the dialectical principle so that in the spirit of true equality students should be taught arguments that are pro and con. So for example in this case evolutionary theory should be taught alongside creationism. Furthermore there should be a broad understanding of the principles being argued including those schools of thought that offer a compromise, for example evolutionary creationism: this combines scientific realism with interpretative scripture.
(b) Although this act declares itseld to be neither pro or anti evolutionism/creationism the statement referring to the deity is too cynical to be of any value. Clearly there are people who believe in creation ex nihilo (from nothing) as there are people who simply do not believe in any creative principle. Not to mention those who believe in many gods. Altogether it would have been better not to have made any reference to specific faith issues.
(c) Having read through previous posts, including the proposers replies I am satisfied that the intention of this resolution was to prevent nations from 'oppressing' those who teach evolutionary theory. I still like others though remain unconvinced that there is anything in this proposal that will be effective. To maintain that what is taught should be down to the relevent interests of students and teachers is a non-starter, after all education is not a democracy. Who has the authority to decide what can or cannot be taught? Are we going to ballot the students? If we did ballot students and they then voted against learning evolutionary theory are we then to accept that they made the right choice? (surely not!).

I believe that everyone has a right to the freedom of information in particular the right to free access to education and all schools of thought. I believe that everyone has the right to be taught evolutionary theory as well as creationism, and so on. But I also believe we do not have the right to impose one school of thought over another. The true meaning of the word teacher (from the latin or greek educare) is to open the mind. Surely our teachers should not tell the students what to believe but should teach all points of view equally and fairly and allow all those who listen the oppurtunity to believe that which they will.

For these reasons and many more it is with a heavy heart but with a clear conscience that I cannot vote for this resolution. And although it has been virtually passed already I look forward to the day when it is repealed in favour of a much more equal and tolerant proposal.

In friendship.
the President of Celtic Eireann

The true meaning of the word teacher (from the latin or greek educare) is to open the mind. Surely our teachers should not tell the students what to believe but should teach all points of view equally and fairly and allow all those who listen the oppurtunity to believe that which they will.

Picky point: The word 'educate' does indeed come from the Latin 'educare'; but this word does not mean 'to open the mind'. Its standard translation is 'to educate'.</picky point>

Not-so-picky point: The statement 'teachers should not tell the students what to believe' is true to an extent, but only to an extent. I would look very unfavorably, for example, on Petronese teachers not telling the students to believe that cheating is wrong.

As I have previously stated, Petronea has voted against this resolution because we feel it does not fall under the scope of the UN's mandate.

His Serene Highness
Matthew I
Holarch of Petronea

Teachers definitely have an influence on what their students believe. For example, in the yuganermese vocabuary books, there constant remarks on how we should take care of the enviroment more. I am not saying that taking care of the enviroment is wrong, but they are shunned from seeing the other view, that we need to sell atleast alittle uranium to bring up our economy, but still keep most of the forest in tact. That is a wonderful example on how teacher influence students to believe what they want them to believe. But, parents can also strongly influence their children also when they shun them to one side. For example, when the parents drink alcohol, the children are also more likely to drink alcohol. With this, and back to the point, children should both sides of the topic and decide for themselves what to believe. The teachers should teach them about evolution even though the parents might teach them about God creating life so the children decide what they believe is right. For these reasons, I urge you to vote affirmative.

Petronea thankyou for your constructive criticism.
My understanding of the meaning of the word. education, derives from what I have learnt of the latin root meaning of the word; educate (latin educare) edu-(educe - meaning to lead) and (care meaning light) in other words to lead us toward light (ENLIGHTENMENT) as opposed to darkness(dumbing down).
I was trying to paraphrase.
On the second point it is indeed correct to teach that cheating is wrong for example. But the emphasis should be on why cheating is wrong and what virtue there is in not cheating. This is what I meant by a dialectical style of teaching. In Celtic Eireann's schools Evolutionary theory is taught alongside Lamarckism, Creationism and the theories of Intelligent Design. The hope is that students can be enlightened for themselves as to what they believe to be correct and not what anyone else proclaims to be correct.

President Andrew of Celtic Eireann

Picky point: The word 'educate' does indeed come from the Latin 'educare'; but this word does not mean 'to open the mind'. Its standard translation is 'to educate'.</picky point>

Not-so-picky point: The statement 'teachers should not tell the students what to believe' is true to an extent, but only to an extent. I would look very unfavorably, for example, on Petronese teachers not telling the students to believe that cheating is wrong.

As I have previously stated, Petronea has voted against this resolution because we feel it does not fall under the scope of the UN's mandate.

His Serene Highness
Matthew I
Holarch of Petronea

Agreed. The Theocracy of Missytoe18 has voted against this resolution.

Children should have the right to decide for themselves what to believe. This does fall under the scope of the mandate because every child in every place should have the chance to choose what they believe. If they don't then the deprived students will think everything else is wrong and do something drastic, such as terrorist attacks.

It is not sad at all and I am getting sad by your continued pessimism. My plan based on the support of the right to learn evolution proposal is to develop an organization for the general advancement of education and free inquiry. The organization may be similar to UNESCO.

It will take some time to draft a proposal that is original and warrants the creation of a new organization in the UN. However I think the long-term payoffs for human rights, mutual understanding between cultures, and peace are well worth the effort. The organization would be called the United Nations Institute for Basic Advancement of Science and Inter-Cultural Studies (UNIBASICS).

Lucius Malfoy II

Would like to draw your attention to new proposal partially related to some of the discussion in this thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=417840

Evolution is for people who will believe anything a guy in a white jacket will tell them. I find all of it completely ridiculous and personally think it shouldn't be taught at all. People obviously have different opinions on the matter, but the evidence for evolution is just not there.

Evolution is for people who will believe anything a guy in a white jacket will tell them. I find all of it completely ridiculous and personally think it shouldn't be taught at all. People obviously have different opinions on the matter, but the evidence for evolution is just not there.
Gosh. I've seen the light. Thank you for opening my eyes to the truth. Y'see, until now I hadn't ACTUALLY given the matter any thought, merely listened to the men in white coats.

They tell me other things, y'know. About gravity. And quantum mechanics. And now I realise that they've been lying to me all the time. Bastards.

Honestly, I should have realised. White jackets are soooo last year.

Cleetus D. Moron
Speaker for Credulous Slack-Jawed Idiocy

After much consideration and debate the Allied States of Vanhalenburgh have decided to vote in favor.

Guided by our own superior and free education system we strongly believe that all forms of theories need to be discussed and taught in the education systems of the world.

Since we already offer a wide variety of theories to our citizens and have seen the benefits we believe strongly that nations that are not currently offering this theory are restricting the furthering of their populations minds and therefore should be gently prodded in the direction of variety.

We see nothing in this resolution that would restrict education systems to teach ONLY the evolution theory and have been satisfied by the description of the resolution.

Herny Peabody
Vanhalenburgh Minister to the UN

The resolution Right to Learn about Evolution was passed 11,868 votes to 4,536, and implemented in all UN member nations.