NationStates Jolt Archive

Will all conservative and religious nations please endorse my proposal in the United Nations, which is as follows:

Right to Teach Creationism
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Saxe-Witte

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

NOTING that many religions feel threatened by the evolutionary theory and that most all religions of the world believe the world was created by a Greater Being or God according to His/Her plan;

EMPHASIZING the United Nations must collectively discourage the suppression of creationism. 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 social and religious tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include creationism 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 creationism 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 creationist studies.

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

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

We like our separation of church and state and our purely secular curriculum. No go for us.

Greetings.

Whereas we of Roathin know in entirety the true story of the creation of our world, in the interests of free speech we would support this proposal if we could, as it allows for a special case of free speech. Note however that the teacher of such lessons remains subject to national laws governing fraud, slander, corruption of minors, and such; even the most liberal of laws must allow for some form of defence against that most potent of weapons - a loose tongue being more deadly than a loose cannon.

We agree with the sentiment expressed by Fass save that it would appear that should the church be sole sponsor of education in a state, the state having left the role to the church, then the education need not be secular at all. Hence one should seek other arguments for suppressing 'religious' education, for that is what Fass's intent seems to be. We consider such education a form of opinion, regardless of its degree of intensity and effect - much as the teaching of literary criticism might proceed with a particularly opinionated lecturer.

It might hence be mandated that any theory (secular or sacred) which offers evidence or other underpinnings which require formation and/or retention of an opinion be left to education of young persons only above a certain age. This would not leave much of value in a curriculum, but it would certainly be rational. We offer this comment without being of opinion either way. After all, we regard the fate of our most terrifying and potent forebear as a salutary lesson as to the eventual end of those who oppose beings of greater effective authority.

Will all conservative and religious nations please endorse my proposal in the United Nations, which is as follows:

Right to Teach Creationism
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Saxe-Witte

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

NOTING that many religions feel threatened by the evolutionary theory and that most all religions of the world believe the world was created by a Greater Being or God according to His/Her plan;

EMPHASIZING the United Nations must collectively discourage the suppression of creationism. 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 social and religious tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include creationism 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 creationism 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 creationist studies.

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

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

Since the wording is vague in relation towards "Creationism" and therefore conveys rights to member-states to incorporate all theories regarding such assumed into the proposed legislation.

Also recognizing the principle of religious liberty and freedom, and assume such applied even in normative education; and whereas, like previous legislation, limitation is placed (assumendly) in course of study (whereby education regarding "creationism" as a theology, belongs strictly in theologicial course work at higher-levels, and in normative "Liberal Religious Studied" at lower levels; just as evolutionary study is applied equally to science curriculum).... In addition persuant to principles of equity recognized in law, will endorse this resolution under principle of fairness (being forced, as such, by previous legislation).

I said it in opposition to the evolution resolution and I'll say it about this - the UN should not be stepping in and offering protection to specific ideas.

Quite apart from that, if teachers start to teach creationism in science lessons in state schools, we are perfectly justified in stopping them. Just as science teachers should not be allowed to teach children that god exists, or that god does not exist, or that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. All of these ideas, while possibly true, are not science, and do not belong in science classes.

I said it in opposition to the evolution resolution and I'll say it about this - the UN should not be stepping in and offering protection to specific ideas.

Quite apart from that, if teachers start to teach creationism in science lessons in state schools, we are perfectly justified in stopping them. Just as science teachers should not be allowed to teach children that god exists, or that god does not exist, or that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. All of these ideas, while possibly true, are not science, and do not belong in science classes.

Well, I doesn't explicitly state that it is to be taught as "science"... Thus, much like the original proposal (which I opposed, BTW); it would be applicable as teaching under typical liberal arts "Religious Studies" (which I assume would be an elective in any liberal curriculum; though, given the sentiment of some; I'm likely wrong to think many are actually "liberal" in the UN; by the classical defintion of the term... But at least leave me my hope and dreams).... And not intermingled outside of the applicable curriculum of the study (Theology)...

While I was adverse to the original proposal (as I didn't see a need to protect individual ideologies on such a grand scale); I believe the UN should be consistent (boy, am I diluted), and will vote on such proposals as this one (and endorse) as long as the UN is taking actions to promote and protect specific ideologies in its laws....

No thankyou, we do not like taking backward steps with regard to science...

Anyway, it is redundant as it is already covered by "The Universal Bill of Rights"; everyone is free to follow any religion, specifically:

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.

You want to teach creationism? Fine, but expect to do it in schools. Stand on the street with a bullhorn, or start a Sunday School programme; don't force us to teach it as fact

What an amazing clone of the Right to Learn about Evolution resolution...

We can support this, if only because it is as equally "open" as the evolution resolution...

No thankyou, we do not like taking backward steps with regard to science...

I see no where in this text where it relates to "science".... Hmm... maybe you want to read more than is there.


Anyway, it is redundant as it is already covered by "The Universal Bill of Rights"; everyone is free to follow any religion, specifically:

This isn't about "follow" it's about teach.... Any liberal arts program would have "Religious Studies" as part of its curriculum; which this would be a valid part of.... I thought the UN in general was liberal..... I guess I was wrong....


You want to teach creationism? Fine, but expect to do it in schools. Stand on the street with a bullhorn, or start a Sunday School programme; don't force us to teach it as fact

Yes, we expect to do it in schools... That's what schools are for... Afterall, it's good to give our citizens a good liberal education, including the specifics of creation beliefs amongst various faiths (Religious Studies course-work)..... And it is a fact that some people do indeed believe in particular creation models within their faiths, varying even amongst some "christian" groups (Such as Young-Earth Creationism, Progressive Creationism, Theistic Evolution; and other such Creation Theologies; and mythos involving early religious beliefs of various civilizations of the past; which would be part of any liberal study of religions in general)...

Yes, we expect to do it in schools
There's nothing preventing you from teaching it in schools (when I was referring to you in my previous post, I was referring to a particular citizen living in a country where creationism isn;t taught in schools). I don't want it taught in my schools.

I thought the UN in general was liberal..... I guess I was wrong
Is it a problem that another country isn't liberal? It's the United Nations, not the United Liberal Nations.

Any liberal arts program would have "Religious Studies" as part of its curriculum
We don't have a liberal arts programme, why should we?
It also does nothing to stop us punishing science teachers that divert educating our students from our science curriculum.

Afterall, it's good to give our citizens a good liberal education
Your's is, mine's about getting our students trained and ready for work in order to increase our economy and increase there earnings. We teach music and art to those who wish to study it, as people demand music and art, therefore it does contribute to the economy; I fail to see how creationism contributes to our economy.

And it is a fact that some people do indeed believe in particular creation models within their faiths, varying even amongst some "christian" groups
And they can teach it in Cobdenia, as per the universal bill of rights that gives them freedom of speech and religion, just not in a government funded institutions.

No, thanks. We already have good biology classes in our schools. If a student wishes to learn about creationism, we have some excellent mythology classes available as well.

Illegal. The UN doesn't allow plagiarized proposals.

Greetings.

Not illegal for reason supplied by DLE. In its essence, has not plagiarised anything. It follows a format, much as a letter does. We do not consider letters plagiarism just because many are taught to begin with "Dear XYZ" and end with "Yours sincerely, DLE".

Lord Jehvah cackled, “Well, if one must make up a religion that is clearly un-True, this is what one gets, no? While the created nature of the universe is obvious to one and all, certain unscientific beliefs such as a universal age of a few thousand years are obviously wrong, and certainly, if we must be forced to teach anything to our inferiors, need not be propagated under UN auspices.”

No, thanks. We already have good biology classes in our schools. If a student wishes to learn about creationism, we have some excellent mythology classes available as well.
Greetings.

Regarding the second line in your paragraph above: this is exactly why it should be a right, else mythology might be made illegal or incomplete, surely states which do not support an holistic education.

We, however, are wondering if it would not be a better idea to have some sort of Universal Ideas Resolution, in which it would be stated that in the interests of human and civil rights to otherwise freely available knowledge, that no legal hindrance be offered to those who wish to facilitate the process of knowledge transfer by teaching such ideas in legal institutions, insofar as such teaching did not involve the infringement of other rights promulgated by this august assembly.

This does not exclude policies related to the mission of a given institution having full effect. For example, an institute designed to teach materials science should not need to allow teaching which does not fulfil its mission. A teacher of any '-ism' should be allowed to set up a school for that '-ism'. Governments need not supply funds for this, or even a site.

After all, students need not listen to what a given teacher has to say, sans coercion. Students also often have the freedom to not attend certain kinds of schools.

This would stem the otherwise irritating potential multiplication of what DLE refers to as 'plagiarized proposals' of this kind.

We would only support such a measure if a UN gnome was employed to shadow every teacher espousing creationist views. We would then expect them to slap them with a fresh kipper repeatedly, perhaps in intervals of twenty seconds.

Darkumbria wholheartedly disagrees with the furtherment of Christianity in universal politics. If the delegate wishes to spew his beliefs, let him do it in his nations policies, and not hold the universe to policies, and beliefs, that are not universal.

Darkumbria wholheartedly disagrees with the furtherment of Christianity in universal politics. If the delegate wishes to spew his beliefs, let him do it in his nations policies, and not hold the universe to policies, and beliefs, that are not universal.
Greetings.

We agree with the Shadow government. However, we ae uncertain as to how 'creationism' is equivalent to 'christianity'. We have seen no mention of a christ in the creationism proposal - nor would we expect to. Creationism is a root of any belief system which assigns personal attributes to the effect of Event One. It belongs in comparative mythology, systematic theology, theurgical studies, cultural anthropology and many other useful and practical areas of knowledge. It is a required course in some of our guild curricula.

Greetings.

Not illegal for reason supplied by DLE. In its essence, has not plagiarised anything. It follows a format, much as a letter does. We do not consider letters plagiarism just because many are taught to begin with "Dear XYZ" and end with "Yours sincerely, DLE".

OOC: Actually, under international law, this is plagiarized. Changing only a few words throughout the entirety of the text does not change it enough from the original for it to truly be their work. Yes, I have heard of people sued and put in prison for what the topic starter is doing. In this case, the plagiarism is mostly an OOC thing but is still illegal under UN rules.

We have had a proposal pull what this one does in the past, and that one was not only deleted but the author was almost given a warning for it.

OOC: Actually, under international law, this is plagiarized. Changing only a few words throughout the entirety of the text does not change it enough from the original for it to truly be their work.
OOC: Actually, no. You are confusing copyright legislation with plagiarism, which is primarily an ethical and academic matter. Copyright deals with the physical presentation of an idea, plagiarism with the use of substance (whether as idea, expression, literal reproduction) in (most often) a dishonest manner. Furthermore, citing international law for a NSUN proposal is a little odd.
Yes, I have heard of people sued and put in prison for what the topic starter is doing. In this case, the plagiarism is mostly an OOC thing but is still illegal under UN rules.

We have had a proposal pull what this one does in the past, and that one was not only deleted but the author was almost given a warning for it.
OOC: Given that the NSUN documents recommend certain formats, and that the database is open to all viewers, it is a given that unless a document violates one of the official rules, it is legal. In fact, it doesn't even come under 'proposal stealing'. It probably comes under 'seeking help'.

IC:

Greetings.

We of Roathin heartily congratulate you on your rigorous stand against miscreants. However, we are rather confused by your insistence of arguing against the format of the document rather than the substance thereof.

OOC: Actually, no. You are confusing copyright legislation with plagiarism, which is primarily an ethical and academic matter. Copyright deals with the physical presentation of an idea, plagiarism with the use of substance (whether as idea, expression, literal reproduction) in (most often) a dishonest manner. Furthermore, citing international law for a NSUN proposal is a little odd.

I'm not confusing them. You're adding more to the difference than there really is. Plagiarism is a problem because the majority of it focuses on copying from copyrighted material. This, in particular, results from a certain United States law that automatically grants copyright. If the author of the resolution this one is plagiarising is in the United States, then the author of this resolution is violating copyright laws and the author can be sued. At the very least, ignoring the amount of people that have gotten into legal trouble for plagiarism in the international scene, this violates the UN rule about copying resolutions.

OOC: Given that the NSUN documents recommend certain formats, and that the database is open to all viewers, it is a given that unless a document violates one of the official rules, it is legal. In fact, it doesn't even come under 'proposal stealing'. It probably comes under 'seeking help'.

Nope. It comes under proposal stealing due to how close it is. As I said, we have dealt with this issue before, and in that case the proposal was deleted before it reached its final day. If the author had intended this to be a unique resolution, then they should have changed much more than just a simple word every now and then.

IC:

Greetings.

We of Roathin heartily congratulate you on your rigorous stand against miscreants. However, we are rather confused by your insistence of arguing against the format of the document rather than the substance thereof.

IC:

We have seen the content, and the content is not worthy of discussion while managing to be beaten like a red-headed stepchild caught with her hand in the cookie jar. We are focusing on another problem this has.

I'm not confusing them. You're adding more to the difference than there really is. Plagiarism is a problem because the majority of it focuses on copying from copyrighted material. This, in particular, results from a certain United States law that automatically grants copyright. If the author of the resolution this one is plagiarising is in the United States, then the author of this resolution is violating copyright laws and the author can be sued.*snip*

OOC: (mildly) This forum being hosted on a UK server, the material thereon comes under UK law, which allows copying of material on public display; one could also argue that the proposal in question comes under satire, which seems likely to many of us.

Nope. It comes under proposal stealing due to how close it is. As I said, we have dealt with this issue before, and in that case the proposal was deleted before it reached its final day. If the author had intended this to be a unique resolution, then they should have changed much more than just a simple word every now and then.
OOC: The UN sticky prohibits copying of someone else's resolution and passing it off as your own. It doesn't (for obvious and very good reason) prohibit using someone else's format. The new proposal is completely different from the old one in its focus. Of course, if there is precedent for deletion of proposal based on this, I'd expect it to go. I'd also expect the sticky to be more informative about this. It's all a bit much to expect even serious proposal writers to read through the entire forum database for precedents.

*snip*

OOC: (mildly) This forum being hosted on a UK server, the material thereon comes under UK law, which allows copying of material on public display; one could also argue that the proposal in question comes under satire, which seems likely to many of us.

With the internet, it's the nationality of the author, not the website, that counts. This creates some problems with the websites frequented by people of other nations. Ironically, while this is a UK website, the majority of its posters by all appearances are Americans.

OOC: The UN sticky prohibits copying of someone else's resolution and passing it off as your own. It doesn't (for obvious and very good reason) prohibit using someone else's format. The new proposal is completely different from the old one in its focus. Of course, if there is precedent for deletion of proposal based on this, I'd expect it to go. I'd also expect the sticky to be more informative about this. It's all a bit much to expect even serious proposal writers to read through the entire forum database for precedents.

Actually, the sticky has never been informative on this, and there is a precedent in this case. To find it, go to the moderation forum and do a search for a topic about a Support Rice Production proposal, which used the Support Hemp Production as its base. I'd do it myself, but with how Jolt often is I feel lucky just being able to post. That proposal was deleted. There is a difference between using a format and just altering a few words here and there and calling it your own.

The sticky could use being more informative. However, you're lucky in that you can ask those of us who are older about precedents.

Will all conservative and religious nations please endorse my proposal

The Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra, UN Ambassador for England, rejects the implication that liberal nations want to restrict the teaching of creationism. We personally teach our children the creation myths of a wide variety of religious in the spirit of religious tolerance. We do however believe that creationism should be taught as part of Theology, not Biology.

"Grr, it seems to be that you should be teaching your heretical nonsense in your heretical churches rather than schools.

It also seems to me that as governments dictate the curriculum, they should dictate what is taught and what is not taught. I thought the United Nations was an alliance, not a united government."

Bonfaaz Burntfur

OOC: Actually, under international law, this is plagiarized. Changing only a few words throughout the entirety of the text does not change it enough from the original for it to truly be their work. Yes, I have heard of people sued and put in prison for what the topic starter is doing. In this case, the plagiarism is mostly an OOC thing but is still illegal under UN rules.

We have had a proposal pull what this one does in the past, and that one was not only deleted but the author was almost given a warning for it.

Under the Public Domain Resolution:
Any work by a "UN Government" (Clause 3) is automatically "Public Domain". Thus "Plagerism" is not longer applicable.

Under the Public Domain Resolution:
Any work by a "UN Government" (Clause 3) is automatically "Public Domain". Thus "Plagerism" is not longer applicable.

Let me quote you exactly what it says:

Description: UN nations resolve to establish a public domain. If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the exclusive rights that apply to a copyrighted work.

Works pass into the public domain when:

1) the term of copyright for the work has expired

2) the author failed to satisfy statutory formalities to perfect the copyright

3) it is a work of a UN Government

4) it is deemed "freeware" or "shareware"

The problem with this is simple: We do not have evidence to say whether any resolution is the work of an individual in the nation that the government supports (making it copyrighted) or is a work of the government as a whole. If it is the former, the Public Domain resolution does not apply. If the latter, then we get to another set of a circumstances. That set is the question of whether, once passed by the UN, it becomes the work of the group as a whole (making it not the work of a UN government, but a policy of the UN itself, which is not covered by the resolution) or if it stays the work of the nation who created it. If the former, the Public Domain resolution does not apply. If the latter, then it does.

Beginning to see the complications involved in this?

The problem with this is simple: We do not have evidence to say whether any resolution is the work of an individual in the nation that the government supports (making it copyrighted) or is a work of the government as a whole. If it is the former, the Public Domain resolution does not apply. If the latter, then we get to another set of a circumstances. That set is the question of whether, once passed by the UN, it becomes the work of the group as a whole (making it not the work of a UN government, but a policy of the UN itself, which is not covered by the resolution) or if it stays the work of the nation who created it. If the former, the Public Domain resolution does not apply. If the latter, then it does.

Beginning to see the complications involved in this?
Greetings.

We do not see any complications at all. It is a fact that if an employee is obligated by the terms of his contract to produce a physical expression of an idea, the copyright normally belongs to the employer and the work is considered that of the employer. Do not let your reach exceed your grasp, if you do not believe in the primacy of heaven.

For your reference: we of Roathin accessed a document of the semimythical state which you invoked, namely, the 'US' - in the section marked 101 of the apocryphal tome of their copyright law, the term 'work for hire' is defined, and we suggest you read that section.

Greetings.

We do not see any complications at all. It is a fact that if an employee is obligated by the terms of his contract to produce a physical expression of an idea, the copyright normally belongs to the employer and the work is considered that of the employer. Do not let your reach exceed your grasp, if you do not believe in the primacy of heaven.

In which case, you produced a logical fallacy. If they are hired by the company, it is the company itself which has legally produced the document. Now, keep that logical fallacy in mind and, while looking at our comments again, try to come up with a way every statement is true. Here is a hint: Not all laws passed by nations orginate within the government of the nation.

For your reference: we of Roathin accessed a document of the semimythical state which you invoked, namely, the 'US' - in the section marked 101 of the apocryphal tome of their copyright law, the term 'work for hire' is defined, and we suggest you read that section.

OOC: The current DLE is based on a group that broke away from the United States before it fell apart. I'm well aware of that law and also well aware of certain parts of how people interact with their government in relation to passing laws that you are ignoring.

In which case, you produced a logical fallacy. If they are hired by the company, it is the company itself which has legally produced the document. Now, keep that logical fallacy in mind and, while looking at our comments again, try to come up with a way every statement is true. Here is a hint: Not all laws passed by nations orginate within the government of the nation.
Greetings.

We are amused yet again. Follow the logic. All resolutions are formerly proposals, approved by assent of a majority vote taken among all voting entities within the NSUN, and all such entities are members of the NSUN. All proposals sent up to vote are sponsored and authored by a state. (All rules within the NSUN ambit are phrased as if the state sponsoring and the author of the proposal are part or whole of a single corporate entity often referred to as 'you'.) There are cases of co-authoring, but cases of co-sponsoring are illegal. In cases of co-authoring (of which the specific case we are examining is not one) the wording of the proposal would still pass into the public domain.

Greetings.

We are amused yet again. Follow the logic. All resolutions are formerly proposals, approved by assent of a majority vote taken among all voting entities within the NSUN, and all such entities are members of the NSUN. All proposals sent up to vote are sponsored and authored by a state. (All rules within the NSUN ambit are phrased as if the state sponsoring and the author of the proposal are part or whole of a single corporate entity often referred to as 'you'.) There are cases of co-authoring, but cases of co-sponsoring are illegal. In cases of co-authoring (of which the specific case we are examining is not one) the wording of the proposal would still pass into the public domain.

We are amused in this case. The use of "you" assumes all parts of the nation, whether it be the government or some street beggar, when it comes to the proposals. A proposal must come from within a certain nation, with possible help from another nation either in entirety or in part, but nothing specifically states that the government must in all cases be the actual author, only that the government must submit it to the UN. There is nothing preventing a barber inside your nation from actually writing the proposal, maybe with the help of a penpal in another nation, and then submitting it to your government to consider, and there is nothing beyond how your government acts that prevents your government from agreeing with the proposal and simply forwarding it on to the UN. While your nation gets the credit in the UN, your government is not the actual author of the resolution. Nor, for that matterm is your government legally the author, as the barber was not hired to write the resolution.

Co-sponsoring also is not illegal. Co-submitting is. Sponsoring is what delegates do when they add their approval to a proposal. If a proposal gets enough sponsors and doesn't get removed for rules violations, it goes up for vote and becomes a resolution. Then, pass or fail, we move on.

Well, I doesn't explicitly state that it is to be taught as "science"... Thus, much like the original proposal (which I opposed, BTW); it would be applicable as teaching under typical liberal arts "Religious Studies" (which I assume would be an elective in any liberal curriculum; though, given the sentiment of some; I'm likely wrong to think many are actually "liberal" in the UN; by the classical defintion of the term... But at least leave me my hope and dreams).... And not intermingled outside of the applicable curriculum of the study (Theology)...

Suppression is defined as written laws preventing the teaching of creationism or punishing those who teach it.

This makes no allowances for the appropriateness or otherwise of the lesson subject. If passed, this proposal would repeal as suppressive our curriculum legislation which is supposed to ensure that all our students receive a basic, and to the best of our ability, truthful education - science teachers in state schools are not allowed to portray the Genesis creation myth as a legitimate scientific theory, because (as possible as it might be) it is not science (I would add that teachers do have to make it clear that Darwinism, and indeed all science, consists of theory and not definite fact). We also prohibit religious education lessons in state schools from turning from discussion into preaching - so teachers are not actually allowed to teach students beliefs like creationism, they may only teach students about them.

These laws could well be deemed to be "preventing the teaching of creationism or punishing those who teach it" under certain circumstances.

We are amused in this case. The use of "you" assumes all parts of the nation, whether it be the government or some street beggar, when it comes to the proposals.*snip*
Greetings.

We are glad to be mutually amused. The fact is that there is no dissociation between submission, authorship and ownership in the rules governing the proposals and resolutions of this august assembly. (In passing, we note the confusion between 'country submitting' and 'country sponsoring' - the rules say that the name of the country sponsoring should be in the heading.) We could indeed have a barber in a nation write the proposal. But there are no obvious grounds for assuming that this is the case for any of the proposals submitted for voting in the NSUN.

In fact, there can be no obvious grounds as the proposing state's name is the only one given, whether or not that state is considered sponsor, submitter, whatever. Given that this deliberate format is presented to us, it would be odd to seek attribution to some street beggar or any other entity other than the single nation-state listed as the proposer.

*snip*
Greetings.

We are glad to be mutually amused. The fact is that there is no dissociation between submission, authorship and ownership in the rules governing the proposals and resolutions of this august assembly. (In passing, we note the confusion between 'country submitting' and 'country sponsoring' - the rules say that the name of the country sponsoring should be in the heading.) We could indeed have a barber in a nation write the proposal. But there are no obvious grounds for assuming that this is the case for any of the proposals submitted for voting in the NSUN.

There is also no allocation in the UN for differences between what planets the various members are on. The problem with the use of the word "sponsor" in this case is indicative of the national government itself not being the author, as why would it have to sponsor what it created? But, we suspect this is possibly a case of miswording.

In fact, there can be no obvious grounds as the proposing state's name is the only one given, whether or not that state is considered sponsor, submitter, whatever. Given that this deliberate format is presented to us, it would be odd to seek attribution to some street beggar or any other entity other than the single nation-state listed as the proposer.

The problem here is that it is only attributed to the nation, not to any part of it. It's not attributed to the government, the military, the religious groups, the political groups, the cities, or even some random beggar on the street. It's just attributed to the nation. Going by just attributation by the UN, we cannot use the Public Domain resolution due to the fact we don't have any information on which part of the nation the resolution came from, making it impossible to logically argue that the government was the source.

I must admit that I'm amused by the fact that most debate in this thread is about whether the proposal is plagarised rather than about the actual text of the proposal.

On topic: Enn will not support this act, much like we did not support the Right to Teach Evolution resolution. We do not see knowledge about evolutioon or creationism as being a basic human right, and as such do not see the point of the titles of the proposals/resolutions in question.

In which case, you produced a logical fallacy. If they are hired by the company, it is the company itself which has legally produced the document. Now, keep that logical fallacy in mind and, while looking at our comments again, try to come up with a way every statement is true. Here is a hint: Not all laws passed by nations orginate within the government of the nation.



OOC: The current DLE is based on a group that broke away from the United States before it fell apart. I'm well aware of that law and also well aware of certain parts of how people interact with their government in relation to passing laws that you are ignoring.

It does not matter who writes them, they are a product of "a UN government", mainly the United Nations voting members themselves. All resolutions passed by this body are "public domain", as are all laws passed by member states... No one can make claim to ownership.

This makes no allowances for the appropriateness or otherwise of the lesson subject. If passed, this proposal would repeal as suppressive our curriculum legislation which is supposed to ensure that all our students receive a basic, and to the best of our ability, truthful education - science teachers in state schools are not allowed to portray the Genesis creation myth as a legitimate scientific theory, because (as possible as it might be) it is not science (I would add that teachers do have to make it clear that Darwinism, and indeed all science, consists of theory and not definite fact). We also prohibit religious education lessons in state schools from turning from discussion into preaching - so teachers are not actually allowed to teach students beliefs like creationism, they may only teach students about them.

These laws could well be deemed to be "preventing the teaching of creationism or punishing those who teach it" under certain circumstances.


CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and social and religious tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include creationism 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 creationism or punishing those who teach it.

Once again, it does not explicitly state where in the curriculum it must be placed, or indeed if it even must be placed to begin with.

Much like with the evolution res.... I can punish a math teacher for covering "evolutionary theory" in their classroom... For violating curriculum, and not covering the appropriate topics under their discipline (which does not violate the Evo res, since I am not "punishing them" for "teaching evolution"; merely penalizing them for varying from their particular educational field and curriculum).... The same would apply to this one... Creationism and Creation Myth studies, are confined to social studies, world/ancient history studies, and liberal religious/civics studies (as per discipline), If they are taught in science, you would be as free to penalize the teacher, as you would penalizing a Math teacher for teaching evolution...

OOC: Please let me start by saying this... THIS IS A NATIONAL ISSUE.

IC:

My nation would be hardpressed to allow creationism, or its discussion within our classrooms. While my government is not specifically religiously oriented, we are a nation which caters to a broad, middle of the road outlook to many matters and pride ourselves on our large number of pagan believers.

We do not wish to supress any religion, however the proponents of creationism are regularly supressive in their belief structure and do not usually like or allow other theories to be presented.

Moreover, the belief systems which teach creationism are better controlled and regulated at a national level than an international one. For the nations who have interest in creationism, this proposal is redundant. For the nations who are run on strict religious affiliations (aside from the 'regular genre' of religions), this proposal would have no weight and no support within the nations borders. Since the proposal does not specifically endorse anything, or otherwise regulate anything, it is an empty proposal which my government feels is a waste of time.

It does not matter who writes them, they are a product of "a UN government", mainly the United Nations voting members themselves. All resolutions passed by this body are "public domain", as are all laws passed by member states... No one can make claim to ownership.

You have a quote from the rules to back that?

OOC: Now, my understanding on the issue of 'public domain' would be this.

Firstly, resolutions which have been PASSED by the NS UN are public domain, as they are part of the charter which guides us. However; it is suggested that when copying from a specific proposal, that you name the proposal, the date it passed and its vote. This allows for readers to look back at the proposal, and see where ideas came from.

Favorable and dissenting arguments of the resolutions are not public domain, as these are opinions of resolutions belonging to the originating nation.
Resolutions yet to be submitted, que'ed or passed are not public domain. Someone else thought of them, and it is only fair to name key nations who suggested major ideas, or changes; as well as any nation who co-authored or wrote any section of a proposal.

That is how I see it, and how I operate. I think its a fairly easy guide to such things.

Much like with the evolution res.... I can punish a math teacher for covering "evolutionary theory" in their classroom... For violating curriculum, and not covering the appropriate topics under their discipline (which does not violate the Evo res, since I am not "punishing them" for "teaching evolution"; merely penalizing them for varying from their particular educational field and curriculum)....

I don't think this really works as a way around the resolution. It is not well-written enough to make this distinction. We don't punish teachers for deviating from the curriculum, because our curriculum laws are not exhaustive - that is, they specify a core of knowledge that students need to be given, but there is a degree of freedom for teachers and schools to choose topics within lesson subjects. What we do have specific laws against is teaching certain inappropriate things - including teaching theological stories in science lessons, or indeed teaching religious ideas at all (like I said, teachers can only teach about them, to prevent them indoctrinating students). That would be a clear violation of this proposal as it is "preventing the teaching of creationism or punishing those who teach it".

I don't think this really works as a way around the resolution. It is not well-written enough to make this distinction. We don't punish teachers for deviating from the curriculum, because our curriculum laws are not exhaustive - that is, they specify a core of knowledge that students need to be given, but there is a degree of freedom for teachers and schools to choose topics within lesson subjects. What we do have specific laws against is teaching certain inappropriate things - including teaching theological stories in science lessons, or indeed teaching religious ideas at all (like I said, teachers can only teach about them, to prevent them indoctrinating students). That would be a clear violation of this proposal as it is "preventing the teaching of creationism or punishing those who teach it".

Your language is confusing.... "teaching about" = "teaching" = "indoctrination".... I cannot see how you can make "teaching of" illegal, and then allow "teaching about" while preventing the "indoctrination of"...

In any case, "Creationism" is clearly (being a theological view), philosophy/theology, and not a Physical Science.... So I can't see how this makes anything illegal to punish teachers who veer from their doctrinal course of study... (I would not punish a science teacher for teaching 'creationism', I would punish them for not teaching "Physical Sciences" in their Science class... Just as I would not punish a Math teacher for teaching "Evolution"; I'd punish them for not teaching Math [Punishment being in stipulation of violation of contract]... )

I think _Myopia_ should get bonus points for mentioning the Great Green Arklesiezure.

Yes,a religion course is usually part of a liberal arts program, but not at the elementry/junior high/ highschool level. I thought college religion classes discussed what made a religion a religion and other general ideas like that. I didn't think they mentioned specific religions very often ( maybe they use on as an example once in a while) or covered very specific things creationism. I could be wrong, I often am.

Creationism doesn't belong in science classes, the theory of Creationism contradicts science to some degree and is based on religion rather than rational thought or a series of observations. Not to mention you can't teach Creationism without also teaching religion to some degree (how can you teach creationism without also teaching how a diety/dieties made creation?). Besides, " philosophy/theology" doesn't belong in science courses. Just the science ma'am.

Your language is confusing.... "teaching about" = "teaching" = "indoctrination".... I cannot see how you can make "teaching of" illegal, and then allow "teaching about" while preventing the "indoctrination of"...

I am trying to distinguish between teaching students about an idea (as in "These people believe that x, y and z happened") and teaching the idea to them as definitively correct (as in "x, y and z happened). To me, "teaching Creationism" implies the latter, which we refuse to allow.

In any case, "Creationism" is clearly (being a theological view), philosophy/theology, and not a Physical Science.... So I can't see how this makes anything illegal to punish teachers who veer from their doctrinal course of study...

It may be clear to you and me, but a lot of people see Creationism as scientific. If the teacher and the school they worked for took this view, this resolution would make it much more difficult to deal with them.

Seeing as how this resolution would violate the Clownshoesian federal ban on the teaching of any and all religion within our borders, our government is hereby against this proposal.