NationStates Jolt Archive

Sabbath Day Off

All workers in countries run by the UN should have the right have one day a week off for religious reasons. Whilst companies have the right to be open 7 days a week, people of all faiths should have the right to refuse to on the holy day of their religion without fear of losing their job or being discriminated against.

However to prevent non-religious people from using this as an excuse to bunk off work, people taking such a day off a week must present a signed letter from their Pastor, Priest, Rabbi, Iman or other religious leader. Clergy are exempt because they have to work on their holy day.

An example of how this will work is that church-going Christians have the right to refuse to work on a Sunday.


School Prayer

All children at schools all over the UN should have the right to at least 5 minutes of prayer time at school everyday, even if they are in a state school.

To prevent compromising the separation of church and state, this prayer time does not have to be led by a teacher and directed at a particular God. But 5 minutes of silence will help bring spirituality into the lives of children so that they grow up as strong, happy and wise human beings.


Freedom for Missionaries

All UN countries must allow people of all faiths to share their beliefs with anyone who will listen. Therefore religious missionaries should be allowed to enter and work in all countries without fear.

People shall have the freedom of faith, freedom of non-faith and the freedom to spread faith.


Repeal of Rights for Minorities and Women

Whilst I agree all people are equal, parts of this resolution stinks of political correctness and postmodernism.

Article III in particular is absurd and discriminates againsts people that believe in absolute truth. (such as born-again Christians) Of course some beliefs are more right and better than others. Democracy for example is superior to fascism and people who deny the holocaust are more wrong than believe who do accept the holocaust.

This article causes the criminalisation of Christianity whose founder Jesus Christ claimed to be the 'one and only way' to God. This article must be removed for its intolerance of evangelical Christians and other non-post-modern groups.

The fact that you have used the phrase 'all people are created equal' and used the word 'created' discriminates against atheists who do not believe we were created.

Article I is right when it says no race is better than another. However clearly some cultures are better than others. A peaceful democracy is superior to a warlike tribe of cannibals who perform human sacrifice.

I am not opposed to a treaty of human rights, but this resolution limits the human rights of everyone except postmodernists.

We would support part of your proposal but the the whole.

Perhapes you might be better off tackling these issues one at a time.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

I think they actually are separate proposals, but have just been written together here.

Could you please put up the categories and strengths for your proposals?

Sabbath Day Off leads to economic problems with respect to the fact that, for example, if you a company that needs to work seven days a week (such as electricity producation), but is made up 1/3 Jewish, 1/3 Moslem and 1/3 Christian, you end up having three days a week with 2/3 capacity (Moslems Holy day is Friday, Jews Saturday, and Christians Sunday). Anyway, whilst the religious aspect is not explicitly covered, the 40 hour work week prevents people working all week anyway.
School Prayer: While I can't see anything wrong with the idea, I do take abjection to the line "even if they are in a state school", not because it passes it on to state schools, but rather because it implies that independent schools would have to follow it. In my view an independant school should have to right to be completely independant from the curriculum of the state sector.
Freedom for Missionaries;
Freedom of religion covers most of this, and it also leads to problems with illegal immigration and international terrorism.
Repeal of Rights for Minorities and Women:
Nope.

The fact that you have used the phrase 'all people are created equal' and used the word 'created' discriminates against atheists who do not believe we were created.

The people of Makatoto are all avowedly athiest (though we do not turn away any one of any religion from our "borders"). It has been brought to my attention via email from a large group of secularists in our nation that in fact, we do believe we are created. This group also wishes it noted how house, cars and dolphins are created, and we use the word "creation" to show anything that has been produced from something else.

Also, we are happy with the spirit of the wording, even if it is offesnive to some athiests (though I wish they would step forward and tell us they are offended.)

Your other resolutions, however-We support School prayer, but urge for aname change to show it can be used in a none religious manner, perhaps as "School spirituality time"?

As has been noted, previous resolutions are in place to aid your sabbath proposal.

We reject uterly the repeal.

We reject uterly the repeal. So you think it is fine that people are forced by law to reject absolute truth.By its very nature this resolution can be interpreted to ban Christianity and atheism.We have legally enforced postmodernism. This resolution is outdated and needs ammendment. However since ammedments are impossible in NS, then it must be repealed and then another proposal must be passed.

Would you support my Repeal if I offered a replacement. As a liberal Christian nation the Kingdom of Heaven supports Racial and Gender equality. Its just that the current resolution is discriminatory against other groups.

For example if a person says "There is no God. People who believe in God are wrong!" that person could find themselves in trouble with the law and possibly jailed because he/she claimed that atheism was more correct than theism. The resolution states that "no religion or belief is better or more true than another". Therefore atheists who proclaim their beliefs as true are violating UN law.

When it says "no culture is better than another" it gives a violent group of cannibals legal equality to peaceloving cultures.

This resolution is a nonsense. The person who proposed it probably meant well, but it is badly worded.

After reading the resolution that you cite we would tend to agree that the wording of the current resolution is in need of updating. We believe that the resolution has merit and would like to see it replaced with a better written proposal.

I would tackel this issue separate from the other you have listed and lets see a replacement proposal should the current resolution get repealed.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

No UN resolution can condemn or ban any form of government. A Government by which cannibal has eaten the most people cannot be condemned by a resolution, nor can democracy, Marxism, etc.

The Sabbath proposal is uttely inappropriate and unnecessary.

As is the school prayer one, the repeal of women's and minority rights, and the missionary one is already covered. I support nothing here. Having stated that, I'll explain why.

The missionary one, as I've already explained, is covered. It's actually the only one here I like. If it wasn't already in the Freedom of Religion one, I'd support it. However, you have to understand that a nation that doesn't let ANYONE enter their borders doesn't have to let missionaries in just because

The school prayer one is ridiculous. If your child really wants to pray, they can do it on their own time or even during class. In Fatus Maximus, our schools are secular. Children are welcome to pray silently during class- but they won't get twenty hours a year off of their education a day to do it. And if they get called upon to answer a question in the middle of a Haily Mary or Salah or whatever, the teacher can mark them as not participating in class if they don't have an answer.

The Sabbath proposal is likewise flawed. As Cobdenia pointed out, the 40 hour work week already guarantees you have at least one "day of rest". Whether it coincides with your particular religious sabbath day is irrelevant. Most religions accept that if you CAN'T make the sabbath day celebration (if your religion even HAS a sabbath day celebration) you can make it up another time. Anyone too uptight (Yes, I said uptight- those who aren't willing to trade their Sabbath day for another aren't sacrificing for the faith, merely granstanding) about this is welcome to not take that job in the first place.

Repeal of Rights for Minorities and Women- First off, the title alone is enough to ensure this never passes in the UN. But let us examine your argument. The resolution doesn't make it illegal to hold a certain viewpoint. It makes it illegal for the government to hold that one religion is better than any other. The counter-argument to this is, of course, "But what about theocracies?" My answer is this- the government is welcome to endorse a particular religion- just not to the point where members of other religions are any less looked after by the government. You're still a Christian- We're still not. This resolution doesn't make it illegal to be a certain religion or non-religion.

I support the repeal of Rights of Minorities and womes because everything mentioned in it is covered in other resolutions thereby making it redundant, to the rest of the proposals I respond with this.
http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/nationalsovereighty.jpg

Koroser cannot support any of these proposals.

The Sabbath Day proposal is endorsing religion. What about the people who do not have a religion? Do they have to work when no one else does?

School prayer, innocuous as it may seem, discriminates against those who do not have a religion, and therefore are forced to sit in silence on the pain of punishment while everyone else prays. Koroser firmly supports religious freedom, but we will not force it on those who do not wish to listen.

Freedom of Missionaries is redundant.

We feel a repeal of Rights is extreme, until someone writes a replacement proposal that covers the issue. Until then, we cannot support a repeal.

Separation of Church and State is complete in Fass. We cannot support a single one of these proposals. Your religious agenda is an afront to our secular society, and your attempts to try to secure a special place for a certain religion, in this case Christianity, by repealing "Rights of Minorities and Women" will be opposed.

What they said, only more indignant sounding. :D

The region of Northwind and Darkumbria wholehearted reject these proposals. The right to choose, or not to choose, which religion(s) any nation shall follow shall be on their shoulders, not ours. These proposals are, in fact, yet another attempt by the Christians to force those nations who believe in true freedom to think, and do, otherwise.

Sabbath Day Off

All workers in countries run by the UN should have the right have one day a week off for religious reasons. Whilst companies have the right to be open 7 days a week, people of all faiths should have the right to refuse to on the holy day of their religion without fear of losing their job or being discriminated against.

We find this to be discriminatory against those without religions. This becomes important later. The rest of the reasons are already covered.

However to prevent non-religious people from using this as an excuse to bunk off work, people taking such a day off a week must present a signed letter from their Pastor, Priest, Rabbi, Iman or other religious leader. Clergy are exempt because they have to work on their holy day.

An example of how this will work is that church-going Christians have the right to refuse to work on a Sunday.

This is very discriminatory against people without a religion.

School Prayer

All children at schools all over the UN should have the right to at least 5 minutes of prayer time at school everyday, even if they are in a state school.

To prevent compromising the separation of church and state, this prayer time does not have to be led by a teacher and directed at a particular God. But 5 minutes of silence will help bring spirituality into the lives of children so that they grow up as strong, happy and wise human beings.

We do not equate faith with wisdom in all cases. Considering the fact we left the Earth's surface to get away from the billions who had faith but were foolish, we do not see the two as being necessarily in the same person. We see no reason the child cannot do this on their own during lunch or a break.

Freedom for Missionaries

All UN countries must allow people of all faiths to share their beliefs with anyone who will listen. Therefore religious missionaries should be allowed to enter and work in all countries without fear.

People shall have the freedom of faith, freedom of non-faith and the freedom to spread faith.

We cannot protect missionaries. They will represent a world we have chosen to leave behind, and as such will be subject to violence. We also do not let in anyone without checking them out, and of those maybe three people have been allowed in. If missionaries wish to enter D'ni (our only settlement on Earth), they can brave the volcano entrance and the numerous unmapped and unmarked underground shafts unassisted like everyone else.

Repeal of Rights for Minorities and Women

Whilst I agree all people are equal, parts of this resolution stinks of political correctness and postmodernism.

Article III in particular is absurd and discriminates againsts people that believe in absolute truth. (such as born-again Christians) Of course some beliefs are more right and better than others. Democracy for example is superior to fascism and people who deny the holocaust are more wrong than believe who do accept the holocaust.

We find this ironic, as your first proposal discriminates against people of no faith. In any case, we also find your idea of absolute truth to be limited, as it does not consider the hidden intricacies that cause many democracies to fall into chaos and many fascisms to give rise to great empires.

This article causes the criminalisation of Christianity whose founder Jesus Christ claimed to be the 'one and only way' to God. This article must be removed for its intolerance of evangelical Christians and other non-post-modern groups.

We find this even more ironic. See your first proposal to see why.

The fact that you have used the phrase 'all people are created equal' and used the word 'created' discriminates against atheists who do not believe we were created.

How is that any different from your discriminating against atheists in your first proposal?

Article I is right when it says no race is better than another. However clearly some cultures are better than others. A peaceful democracy is superior to a warlike tribe of cannibals who perform human sacrifice.

Race != culture, contrary to what the Nazis and everyone else who practiced racism may have believed. We note, however, that we have yet to find a peaceful democracy that isn't peaceful because it is dead, while we have found many "warlike tribe[s] of cannibals" who actually have amazingly advanced cultures with a greater tendency towards not being destroyed from the inside in spite of their dietary practices. Democracies could stand to learn a few things from cannibals about stability.

I am not opposed to a treaty of human rights, but this resolution limits the human rights of everyone except postmodernists.

This is the sound of the world's smallest violen.

Ignoring all of the problems with your repeal, we do have another reason to not wish the resolution removed: Our founder, Yisha, was both a minority (5/8 D'ni, 3/8 human) and a woman.

The region of Northwind and Darkumbria wholehearted reject these proposals. The right to choose, or not to choose, which religion(s) any nation shall follow shall be on their shoulders, not ours. These proposals are, in fact, yet another attempt by the Christians to force those nations who believe in true freedom to think, and do, otherwise.
This is rubbish! The Kingdom of Heaven is a tolerant liberal democracy. Although we recognise Christianity as the official faith of our country, we have have free-will laws garenteeing freedom of religion and non-religion even within our own borders. Our nation is even if favour of Civil Unions for homosexuals. Look at our profile. I suspect we are more liberal and democratic than most of the nations in the UN.
So if our own country doesnt force faith onto our own people, how can it be said that we are forcing Christianity onto other countries? All these proposals do is try to support the rights of Christians (and other faiths) in other countries. Notice that proposals also protect Muslims, atheists and other groups. If we were forcing Christianity onto people then wouldnt we exclude these groups?

Instead it seems that nations such as your own are frightened that Christians in your country will threaten the humanistic postmodern concensus you are so eager to keep. Your statement above argues that its up to each nation to decide for itself if its citizens can enjoy religious liberty. So a communist state persecuting Christians is tolerated in the UN? Theres no freedom of thought and beleif there then.
Whilst we are fighting for religious liberty and freedom, you are supporting intolerance of religion.

We find this to be discriminatory against those without religions. This becomes important later. The rest of the reasons are already covered.



This is very discriminatory against people without a religion.



We do not equate faith with wisdom in all cases. Considering the fact we left the Earth's surface to get away from the billions who had faith but were foolish, we do not see the two as being necessarily in the same person. We see no reason the child cannot do this on their own during lunch or a break.



We cannot protect missionaries. They will represent a world we have chosen to leave behind, and as such will be subject to violence. We also do not let in anyone without checking them out, and of those maybe three people have been allowed in. If missionaries wish to enter D'ni (our only settlement on Earth), they can brave the volcano entrance and the numerous unmapped and unmarked underground shafts unassisted like everyone else.



We find this ironic, as your first proposal discriminates against people of no faith. In any case, we also find your idea of absolute truth to be limited, as it does not consider the hidden intricacies that cause many democracies to fall into chaos and many fascisms to give rise to great empires.



We find this even more ironic. See your first proposal to see why.



How is that any different from your discriminating against atheists in your first proposal?



Race != culture, contrary to what the Nazis and everyone else who practiced racism may have believed. We note, however, that we have yet to find a peaceful democracy that isn't peaceful because it is dead, while we have found many "warlike tribe[s] of cannibals" who actually have amazingly advanced cultures with a greater tendency towards not being destroyed from the inside in spite of their dietary practices. Democracies could stand to learn a few things from cannibals about stability.



This is the sound of the world's smallest violen.

Ignoring all of the problems with your repeal, we do have another reason to not wish the resolution removed: Our founder, Yisha, was both a minority (5/8 D'ni, 3/8 human) and a woman. I am offering to support minority and womens rights, whereas that resolution currently forces a postmodern veiwpoint on all people.

Repeal of Rights for Minorities and Women- First off, the title alone is enough to ensure this never passes in the UN.
I agree with the implications of the title. I dont want to repeal the rights of Minorities and Women at all. I am in favour of them. The fact that this resolution has such a good sounding name is unfortunate. I want to ammend that resolution- but NS wont allow that to happen- so I have to repeal it and replace it with something better.

As Christians me favour religious tolerance for all based on Biblical grounds. The Bible argues for the rights of women and all races. We want this to be followed up in law. We do not however want our own beliefs to be condemned by UN mandate.

This could be start of the antichrists one world government.

This is rubbish! The Kingdom of Heaven is a tolerant liberal democracy. Although we recognise Christianity as the official faith of our country, we have have free-will laws garenteeing freedom of religion and non-religion even within our own borders. Our nation is even if favour of Civil Unions for homosexuals. Look at our profile. I suspect we are more liberal and democratic than most of the nations in the UN.

Unless your people can dismiss your entire government for any reason with a vote, you're not even our democratic equals.

So if our own country doesnt force faith onto our own people, how can it be said that we are forcing Christianity onto other countries? All these proposals do is try to support the rights of Christians (and other faiths) in other countries. Notice that proposals also protect Muslims, atheists and other groups. If we were forcing Christianity onto people then wouldnt we exclude these groups?

Not if you were smart and wanted legislation to get passed. Your first proposal kinda does throw your intentions into doubt.

Instead it seems that nations such as your own are frightened that Christians in your country will threaten the humanistic postmodern concensus you are so eager to keep. Your statement above argues that its up to each nation to decide for itself if its citizens can enjoy religious liberty. So a communist state persecuting Christians is tolerated in the UN? Theres no freedom of thought and beleif there then.

You ever bother reading the Universal Bill of Rights? It specifically protects religious freedom, and repealing it won't happen for years. Legally, they have no choice but to allow such freedom. In what way isn't determined because of the vast differences between societies. For example, you have no need for vacations if you're in a society of robots.

Whilst we are fighting for religious liberty and freedom, you are supporting intolerance of religion.

No, they're not. They're opposing what they feel is a nation trying to undo religious freedom. Accusing them of trying to support intolerance is, in light of Bush, only going to make you enemies on this forum, and those enemies are quite experienced with telegram campaigns. Try arguing their points instead of making accusations.

I am offering to support minority and womens rights, whereas that resolution currently forces a postmodern veiwpoint on all people.

I seem to hear that violen I mentioned in my previous post again. Here's a copy of the resolution you are opposing:

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

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

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

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

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

Articles 2, 3, and 4 are already covered by previous UN legislation. These are more statements of UN morals than actual laws.

I agree with the implications of the title. I dont want to repeal the rights of Minorities and Women at all. I am in favour of them. The fact that this resolution has such a good sounding name is unfortunate. I want to ammend that resolution- but NS wont allow that to happen- so I have to repeal it and replace it with something better.

If you want to repeal and replace, use a different arguement. With the arguement you have, that sounds more like something you came up to try and fool people into supporting you than an actual statement of intended actions.

As Christians me favour religious tolerance for all based on Biblical grounds. The Bible argues for the rights of women and all races. We want this to be followed up in law. We do not however want our own beliefs to be condemned by UN mandate.

The Bible argues for a lot of things when used. I've seen it used on both sides of the abortion debate, both sides of the euthanasia debate, both sides of the evolution debate, both sides of atheism vs. christianity, and in more ways than the book itself has words. I'm sure that if you snort enough coke and look in the Bible, you can probably find evidence that Jesus was from Mars and was the leader of the group that abducted Elvis. Current UN law deals with the issue of rights for minorities and women in ways most members find satisfactory while protecting religious freedom in a document that would literally require the Word of God to be repealed. About the only danger here is you looking like a bigger jackass than I am, and that's only because of how it appears with the wording of your proposals and the arguements brought up on here.

This could be start of the antichrists one world government.

Where have you been? This UN has been the start since it was first established.

The Bible argues for a lot of things when used. I've seen it used on both sides of the abortion debate, both sides of the euthanasia debate, both sides of the evolution debate, both sides of atheism vs. christianity, and in more ways than the book itself has words. I'm sure that if you snort enough coke and look in the Bible, you can probably find evidence that Jesus was from Mars and was the leader of the group that abducted Elvis. Current UN law deals with the issue of rights for minorities and women in ways most members find satisfactory while protecting religious freedom in a document that would literally require the Word of God to be repealed. About the only danger here is you looking like a bigger jackass than I am, and that's only because of how it appears with the wording of your proposals and the arguements brought up on here.




Where have you been? This UN has been the start since it was first established.

OOC: ROFLMAO!!! :p

Where is my list of things to vote against... ah, here it is...


Sabbath Day Off

All workers in countries run by the UN should have the right have one day a week off for religious reasons. Whilst companies have the right to be open 7 days a week, people of all faiths should have the right to refuse to on the holy day of their religion without fear of losing their job or being discriminated against.

However to prevent non-religious people from using this as an excuse to bunk off work, people taking such a day off a week must present a signed letter from their Pastor, Priest, Rabbi, Iman or other religious leader. Clergy are exempt because they have to work on their holy day.

An example of how this will work is that church-going Christians have the right to refuse to work on a Sunday.

Refuse to work? Ok, we refuse to pay you. Or keep you in your position. And you can leave my country now, no you don't get the car either that's mine. You can walk. Enjoy the cold weather - minus sixty is so hospitable...



School Prayer

All children at schools all over the UN should have the right to at least 5 minutes of prayer time at school everyday, even if they are in a state school.

To prevent compromising the separation of church and state, this prayer time does not have to be led by a teacher and directed at a particular God. But 5 minutes of silence will help bring spirituality into the lives of children so that they grow up as strong, happy and wise human beings.

Right. By that logic, we should conduct class in silence - if five mintues brings a little spirituality, eight hours should have them rolling in it.



Freedom for Missionaries

All UN countries must allow people of all faiths to share their beliefs with anyone who will listen. Therefore religious missionaries should be allowed to enter and work in all countries without fear.

People shall have the freedom of faith, freedom of non-faith and the freedom to spread faith.

Fear? No fear in Vastiva. Just pay your taxes like nice people and we won't have any problems.



Repeal of Rights for Minorities and Women

Whilst I agree all people are equal, parts of this resolution stinks of political correctness and postmodernism.

Article III in particular is absurd and discriminates againsts people that believe in absolute truth. (such as born-again Christians) Of course some beliefs are more right and better than others. Democracy for example is superior to fascism and people who deny the holocaust are more wrong than believe who do accept the holocaust.

This article causes the criminalisation of Christianity whose founder Jesus Christ claimed to be the 'one and only way' to God. This article must be removed for its intolerance of evangelical Christians and other non-post-modern groups.

The fact that you have used the phrase 'all people are created equal' and used the word 'created' discriminates against atheists who do not believe we were created.

Article I is right when it says no race is better than another. However clearly some cultures are better than others. A peaceful democracy is superior to a warlike tribe of cannibals who perform human sacrifice.

I am not opposed to a treaty of human rights, but this resolution limits the human rights of everyone except postmodernists.

How nice. No support for this.

This could be start of the antichrists[sic!] one world government.

We're sorry, but is this poppycock supposed to sound this loony?

He he... he said poppycock. :D

He he... he said poppycock. :D
Greetings.

We must admit we do not like the sound of that particular word. One of our foes, the lately defeated Sigismund Frayed, a wild-eyed paladin of some renown, used that word when describing certain ideas of his about the link between paternity and phallicity in the subconscious mind.

No Gods, No Masters! Religion is the opium of the people! Down with your capitalist-religious proposals!

Actually, poppycock is from Middle Dutch 'Pappekak', meaning "Soft Deer Poo". It has nothing to do with paternity, nor genitalia.

Kingdom of Heaven if you want to try and reform these laws I suggest that you change your name and don't mention Christianity when you try again. People on this site don't like people trying to "force" their christian "nonsense" on them, they know that you have been "brainwashed" and don't want to listen to what you have to say.

Needless to say after my brief trip to the south of the USA a few years back I can see why. Christians in the US seem to be very different to those found in the UK. For one the UK ones avoid politics.

No Gods, No Masters! Religion is the opium of the people! Down with your capitalist-religious proposals! 'Capitalist-religious'? The Kingdom of God is a socialist nation!

The Democratic Socialist Party is in power at the moment in our country and I think you see that our proposal for the Sabbath Day Off is a bill protecting the rights of the workers against capitalist organisations.

I don't mind people disagreeing with my proposals-but some of the responses seem ignorant and unfair.

I don't mind people disagreeing with my proposals-but some of the responses seem ignorant and unfair.

You want my opinion?

no..well tough here it is.

You said you based it on christianity end of. that shot down your ideas before you even started.


on another issue
Have we had a jesus christ in NS yet? Can we say that Chrisitanity doesn't exist in NS?

Kingdom of Heaven if you want to try and reform these laws I suggest that you change your name and don't mention Christianity when you try again. People on this site don't like people trying to "force" their christian "nonsense" on them, they know that you have been "brainwashed" and don't want to listen to what you have to say.

Needless to say after my brief trip to the south of the USA a few years back I can see why. Christians in the US seem to be very different to those found in the UK. For one the UK ones avoid politics.
But I am not trying to force Christianity onto anyone and no we cannot change our name.

I am from the UK and I strongly dislike the Republican Party. I marched against the war in Iraq and I am pro-choice. I am a Democrat supporter! Both myself and the Kingdom of Heaven are liberals! Check the profile!

I think the issue here is that so many people have had bad experiences with the Christian Right that they are automatically suspicious of anyone in politics that is Christian. People are taking this as an excuse to attack anyone who is Christian in politics. It is so unfair and ignorant. I have seen this happen in real life too!

People should read the proposals carefully before responding to them and they should stop pressuming that Christian = right wing fundamentalist. None of my proposals are intended to push faith onto anyone. They are just to protect the rights of people in all religions, without trampling on the rights of those with none.

You want my opinion?

no..well tough here it is.

You said you based it on christianity end of. that shot down your ideas before you even started.


no what I meant was that the ideas are inspired by Christianity. Just like the abolition of slavery in Britain was inspired by Christianity, and the Racial Equality movement in the 1960's was inspired by Christian ideas.
Are you saying that we should reject the work of Martin Luther King because he was a Christian and found his inspiration from his faith? Or can politics only be inspired from atheistic ideas?

But I am not trying to force Christianity onto anyone and no we cannot change our name.

I am from the UK and I strongly dislike the Republican Party. I marched against the war in Iraq and I am pro-choice. I am a Democrat supporter! Both myself and the Kingdom of Heaven are liberals! Check the profile!

I think the issue here is that so many people have had bad experiences with the Christian Right that they are automatically suspicious of anyone in politics that is Christian. People are taking this as an excuse to attack anyone who is Christian in politics. It is so unfair and ignorant. I have seen this happen in real life too!

People should read the proposals carefully before responding to them and they should stop pressuming that Christian = right wing fundamentalist. None of my proposals are intended to push faith onto anyone. They are just to protect the rights of people in all religions, without trampling on the rights of those with none.
Greetings.

We of Roathin wonder why you appear to be so agitated. We suspect it might be because you are beginning to mix up the mythology of that strange and twilight dimension known as 'Reallife' with the reality of the universe of NationStates in which we live and move and have our being.

A good rule of thumb would be to start at the very beginning and tell us what is is you believe in, so that we can figure out what this 'Christian' thing is. Contextually, it would seem that you are from some UnKnown faction of this 'Christian' religion and are left-wing (as opposed to the Right, which is wrong to you), that you do not like fundamentals, and that you are in favour of protecting rights without trampling on things that do not exist (as in 'the X of all Y which does not have any X', see above).

We await your exposition.

The Sabbath Day proposal is endorsing religion. What about the people who do not have a religion? Do they have to work when no one else does?Thats rubbish. To say that this proposal discriminates against atheists is like saying that a womans right to have an abortion discriminates against men. Its not my fault if atheists dont have a Holy Day. In fact if they want to they can choose their own special day just for atheists.

School prayer, innocuous as it may seem, discriminates against those who do not have a religion, and therefore are forced to sit in silence on the pain of punishment while everyone else prays. Koroser firmly supports religious freedom, but we will not force it on those who do not wish to listen.This is wrong. Just because one is atheist doesnt mean they are not spiritual. I know an atheist who is spiritual. Everyone needs time to reflect and think about their life. It could also be used as a way of quietening down a class after lunch time. Children could also be offered the chance to read a book or magazine. Everyone needs some quiet time.




We feel a repeal of Rights is extreme, until someone writes a replacement proposal that covers the issue. Until then, we cannot support a repeal I feel the current resolution to be poorly written and open to abuse. It has made it illegal for someone state that they believe that their beliefs are right and it opens the door for people in a dangerous cult where they practice human sacrifice to claim cultural persecution when the police try to arrest them.

Greetings.

We of Roathin wonder why you appear to be so agitated. We suspect it might be because you are beginning to mix up the mythology of that strange and twilight dimension known as 'Reallife' with the reality of the universe of NationStates in which we live and move and have our being.

A good rule of thumb would be to start at the very beginning and tell us what is is you believe in, so that we can figure out what this 'Christian' thing is. Contextually, it would seem that you are from some UnKnown faction of this 'Christian' religion and are left-wing (as opposed to the Right, which is wrong to you), that you do not like fundamentals, and that you are in favour of protecting rights without trampling on things that do not exist (as in 'the X of all Y which does not have any X', see above).

We await your exposition. sorry...the truth is that I have experienced some problems recently in real life which have upset me a little. I know this is only a game and some of these atheist nations might be being played by people who are Christian in real life- they are only role playing. It just annoys me when I am misunderstood and the way people automatically think 'fascist' when they here the word Christian. People assume far too quickly.

I will shortly put online the Kingdom of Heavens constitution and beliefs.

No, they're not. They're opposing what they feel is a nation trying to undo religious freedom. Accusing them of trying to support intolerance is, in light of Bush, only going to make you enemies on this forum, and those enemies are quite experienced with telegram campaigns.

Try arguing their points instead of making accusations
I hope you take your own advice. You accused me of trying to force Christianity onto other nations, when you cannot prove this. There is as much (or even more)support for my accusation that you are prejudice against Christianity as there is that I am trying to force religious beliefs onto other countries.

Incidently I am a Democrat in real life and I strongly dislike George W Bush and his Republican Party.

Separation of Church and State is complete in Fass. We cannot support a single one of these proposals. Your religious agenda is an afront to our secular society, and your attempts to try to secure a special place for a certain religion, in this case Christianity, by repealing "Rights of Minorities and Women" will be opposed. This is complete rubbish. We are not giving a special place to Christianity, we are giving real equality for all beliefs. This current bill gives a special place to the New Age movement and Postmodernism.

It also allows protection for holocaust denial as a valid belief. According to the resolution disbeleif in the holocaust is just as valid, moral and true as belief that the holocaust happened. The resolution states that "no religion or belief is better or more true than any other". This is now UN law! Can you not see the problem with this resolution? If a person condemns holocaust denial they will be guilty of breaking this resolution.

This is complete rubbish.

Oh, yeah, such rhetoric is bound to win people over to your side.

We are not giving a special place to Christianity, we are giving real equality for all beliefs. This current bill gives a special place to the New Age movement and Postmodernism.

Post-modernism is the source of your religion's devaluation. You seem to think that's a bad thing, and you are arguing for it because your religion is outdated and want the UN to support it, while at the same time trying to fool us that this affects every other religion. It does not. And so what if it does? Your religion is just as worthless as the rest of them - that's why this resolution is so grand.

It also allows protection for holocaust denial as a valid belief.

What is "the holocaust"?

OOC: Stop using RL arguments to support your feeble stance.

According to the resolution disbeleif in the holocaust is just as valid, moral and true as belief that the holocaust happened.

Yup. It's as worthless a belief as the belief in a wizard in the sky, or two nudists taking nutritional advice from a snake. That's why we have facts.

The resolution states that "no religion or belief is better or more true than any other". This is now UN law!

And you think that's bad because...? Because you think your belief is better than other beliefs? Ha! What an unconvincing argument.

Can you not see the problem with this resolution? If a person condemns holocaust denial they will be guilty of breaking this resolution.

Whatever this holocaust thing is, expressing disbelief in it seems to be a matter of freedom of expression/speech. So trying to censor the people who don't believe in it would violate several other resolutions.

Oh, yeah, such rhetoric is bound to win people over to your side.[quote] its no more rhetoric that your accusation that my nation is after forcing religion on to other countries.



[QUOTE]Postmodernism is the source of your religion's devalution. You seem to think that's a bad thing, and you are arguing for it because your religion is outdated and want the UN to support it, while at the same time trying to fool us that this affects every other religion. It does not. And so what if it does? Your religion is just as worthless as the rest of them - that's why this resolution is so grand.


What is "the holocaust"? The mass murder of Jews in the NS region 5 sixty years ago.



And you think that's bad because...? Because you think your belief is better than other beliefs? Hah! What an unconvincing argument. No. The Kingdom of Heavens stance for a new resolution is that UN nations should be able to choose to be neutral towards religion. Religions should be treated equally. Secular nations can treat no religion or belief as better or more true than another, but they cannot force their citizens to believe this. Its not about the nations belief on religion, its about the citizens belief.

There shouldnt be a clause in a resolution making it illegal for someone to believe they are right. Otherwise the UN could arrest you for you belief that Christianity or Hinduism is wrong, because you would be stating that your beliefs are more true and better than mine.

You are just not getting this are you. We are a LIBERAL nation and even have a Muslim Minister for Commerce. If we accept the current resolution we will have to sack and imprison him for his belief that Christianity is untrue. Afterall he is claiming that one belief is better and more true than another.

Greetings.

We of Roathin have long ago rejected postmodernism as being inherently contradictory. However, that is not the point of this discussion. The point we wish to put across is that it is NOT WISE to resolve that ALL beliefs are equally true (which is the result of saying that none are more true), as this leads to contradiction as well.

Simple example: "We believe that your beliefs are false."

As for the respectable Fass, we realise your frustrations, but you should remember that 'equally worthless' is equivalent to 'equally worthy' and hence dangerous. One also notes that debate is best carried out without excessive adjectivisation.

Post-modernism is the source of your religion's devaluation. You seem to think that's a bad thing, and you are arguing for it because your religion is outdated and want the UN to support it, while at the same time trying to fool us that this affects every other religion. It does not. And so what if it does? Your religion is just as worthless as the rest of them - that's why this resolution is so grand.
Fass- you called religion "worthless"! That violates Article 3 of the Rights for Women and Minorities resolution. The reason? You claimed that non-religion is better and more true than religion. YOU have broken the very resolution you wish to protect. UN international police could come into your country right now and arrest you.

The Republic of the Kingdom of Heaven

This nation was set up in 1776 by Protestant Christian refuges fleeing persecution in Catholic Europe. In 1818 the population had reached 2 million and a democratic government complete with a citizens charter was established.

Due to the nations high percentage of Christians, it was determined that the government and constitution would be Christian in nature.

The Citizens Charter of 1818 ensured:

The right of all males over the age of 25 to vote.
The right of freedom from violence.
The right to free health care.
The right to freedom of Christian worship and belief.
The right to freedom from hunger.
The right to political belief and organisation. (although Marxism was banned until 1905)

The nation was very conservative and quite intolerant in the 19th century. The leading Covenant Conservative Party was under attack by liberals and socialists for its political and religious discrimination. This saw a mass uprising against the government in 1915 and 1916 a new government and Peoples Charter was established and the Liberal Party took power. Liberals and Socialists in power argued that because both men and women are created in Gods image that both must be given the vote. They also argued that the banning of non-Christian religion and atheism was an infringement of God given free-will, as was the criminalisation of homosexuality.
They also argued that the gospel of Christ was a socialist gospel and that Moses was the father of Socialism.

There the Peoples Charter of 1916 declared:

The voting age lowered to 18 and extended to include women.
A charter to protect the rights of women, including right to own property and equality in the workplace.
Religious rights established for all faiths and beliefs. (including atheism)
Full freedom on speech and political organisation.
The legalisation of homosexuality between consenting adults.
Gay Civil Unions are to be declared legal and gays are to be protected legally in employment.
To right for Catholics, homosexuals and non-Christians to become President.
The establishment of CapitalistWatch, an organisation to limit and control capitalism.
The right of citizens to refuse to pay taxes for the Department of Religion and Spirituality. It is now voluntary to pay for this Department (although most people choose to do so)
The removal of religious symbols from courthouses, secular schools and hospitals: as this was said to be a violation of free-will.

Power has been shifting between the Liberal Party and the Democratic Socialist Party ever since. The newly formed Christian Conservative Party have been in third place for almost a 100 years.

In 2005, after ascension to the UN, citizens concerned about their Christian brother and sisters abroad and their legal rights. Liberal MP Anne Williams (daughter of Eva Williams who won the right for women to vote) declared that the human rights hard fought for in 1915, must be extended throughout the world, and that people of all faiths should have UN protection. “We are not after imposing Christianity onto the world, but we want to ensure that the rights of all faiths and beliefs”.
Minister for Commerce and Muslim Imam Hamid Acaman agreed as he had experienced persecution abroad before he fled to Kingdom of Heaven as a refugee. “The largely pantheistic nation I was born in arrested me when I said I believed that Hinduism is wrong and that only Allah is the true God. They threw me in jail because I declared that Islam was more true than Hinduism. I didn’t want to ban Hinduism, I just wanted to say I didn’t agree with it!” “But the Kingdom of Heaven welcomed me with open arms and told me that my argument of Islam as the one true religion would encourage interesting debate between Christians and Muslims”.

its no more rhetoric that your accusation that my nation is after forcing religion on to other countries.

OOC: You seriously need to learn how quote tags work.

You are! You even claim it in the headline of this thread.

The mass murder of Jews in the NS region 5 sixty years ago.

The relevance of it still shines with its absence.

No. The Kingdom of Heavens stance for a new resolution is that UN nations should be able to choose to be neutral towards religion. Religions should be treated equally.

Which they are with this resolution. It doesn't single a single one out.

Secular nations can treat no religion or belief as better or more true than another, but they cannot force their citizens to believe this. Its not about the nations belief on religion, its about the citizens belief.

Something which the resolution does not affect in any way.

There shouldnt be a clause in a resolution making it illegal for someone to believe they are right.

There isn't.

Otherwise the UN could arrest you for you belief that Christianity or Hinduism is wrong, because you would be stating that your beliefs are more true and better than mine.

You need to look over the resolution you are criticising, because there is no such thing contained in it. You also need to look over the resolutions on freedom of speech, because you seem ignorant of them.

You are just not getting this are you. We are a LIBERAL nation and even have a Muslim Minister for Commerce.

Which makes your religious agenda less reprehensive in what sense?

If we accept the current resolution we will have to sack and imprison him for his belief that Christianity is untrue. Afterall he is claiming that one belief is better and more true than another.

Wow, you really don't understand what the resolution says, and how resolutions work with other resolutions, do you?

"I am a Democrat supporter!"

You are a Democrat supporter, and a socialist? How does that work?

Fass- you called religion "worthless"! That violates Article 3 of the Rights for Women and Minorities resolution. The reason? You claimed that non-religion is better and more true than religion. YOU have broken the very resolution you wish to protect. UN international police could come into your country right now and arrest you.

Here it is again, the ignorance of what the resolution actually says and does, and how other resolutions work with it. What the resolution does is prohibits you, i.e. you the state, from picking and choosing what beliefs are "better" than others. It gives equal value, or lack thereof, to my statements about the ridiculousness of religion, as it does to your silly statements of its values. It in no way prohibits people from expressing their beleifs - it makes sure you cannot use your government's silly notions of "better" or "worse" belief to supress them! If it did what you claim, it would have been deleted by the UN gnomes for violating the resolutions that deal with freedom of expression.

You seem to not understand this resolution and this matter at all.

Here it is again, the ignorance of what the resolution actually says and does, and how other resolutions work with it. All I am saying is that it could be better worded. Thats all I want. Believe it or not me and you probably have not that different. I want a Women and Minorities resolution, just not this one.

All I am saying is that it could be better worded. Thats all I want. Believe it or not me and you probably have not that different. I want a Women and Minorities resolution, just not this one.

You are basing your wished rejection of it on a fundemental failure to understand what the resolution says and does, and how it still must comply with other resolutions, especially the ones dealing with freedom of expression and speech.

I find your treatment of the arguments in this thread quite ridiculous. I think most of the argumentation I would like to put forth have been covered, but let me point out a few things to you.
Firstly, your response to DemonLordEnigmas first major runthrough, which covered several points. You quoted all of this:

We find this to be discriminatory against those without religions. This becomes important later. The rest of the reasons are already covered.

This is very discriminatory against people without a religion.

We do not equate faith with wisdom in all cases. Considering the fact we left the Earth's surface to get away from the billions who had faith but were foolish, we do not see the two as being necessarily in the same person. We see no reason the child cannot do this on their own during lunch or a break.

We cannot protect missionaries. They will represent a world we have chosen to leave behind, and as such will be subject to violence. We also do not let in anyone without checking them out, and of those maybe three people have been allowed in. If missionaries wish to enter D'ni (our only settlement on Earth), they can brave the volcano entrance and the numerous unmapped and unmarked underground shafts unassisted like everyone else.

We find this ironic, as your first proposal discriminates against people of no faith. In any case, we also find your idea of absolute truth to be limited, as it does not consider the hidden intricacies that cause many democracies to fall into chaos and many fascisms to give rise to great empires.

We find this even more ironic. See your first proposal to see why.

How is that any different from your discriminating against atheists in your first proposal?

Race != culture, contrary to what the Nazis and everyone else who practiced racism may have believed. We note, however, that we have yet to find a peaceful democracy that isn't peaceful because it is dead, while we have found many "warlike tribe[s] of cannibals" who actually have amazingly advanced cultures with a greater tendency towards not being destroyed from the inside in spite of their dietary practices. Democracies could stand to learn a few things from cannibals about stability.

This is the sound of the world's smallest violin.

Ignoring all of the problems with your repeal, we do have another reason to not wish the resolution removed: Our founder, Yisha, was both a minority (5/8 D'ni, 3/8 human) and a woman.

About nine different arguments. You quoted ALL of them and responded with this:
I am offering to support minority and womens rights, whereas that resolution currently forces a postmodern veiwpoint on all people.
Which responds to... one... no, zero... of those arguments. This is essentially a very obnoxious way of taking your opponents criticism and shoving it to the side so that it makes your proposal look less weak and pathetic. You need to respond directly or not at all.

It's also untrue since you're repealing a resolution on minority and womens rights. While you can say that you support minority and womens rights, the effects of a repeal do not support those rights in any way. It is only after such a resolution is repealed (and that is very improbable) that you can reintroduce a resolution on minority and womans rights and say you are supporting it. And even then, the resolution has to be even more powerful than the last or else you are detracting from said rights.

In addition, the vast number of your other rebuttals tend to be extremely abusive, going so far as to put the opposition on the side of "The Antichrist". Firstly, making your opposers out to be some kind of massive enemy of religion (even if a few rise to the bait) is not going to make their arguments untrue. Secondly, put down the Left Behind novels. Right now. Religious sci-fi has no use in NS, especially considering the moderately secularist tendency of the U.N. Also, they're really awful books.

Also, making up stuff about your nation doesn't really mean anything in terms of your proposals.

Here are my final words to you, on the subject of all of your proposals in general: It is the opinion of Pojonia that legislation based off of religious morality has no place in government. By imposing a morality based off of your religious beliefs (as you said specifically in the thread title), you are enforcing that your religious beliefs are the correct ones, and therefore that those that disagree with you are not. It restricts the rights of others to do things that you don't believe in - and whether or not they are sinners, it is not another religions job to interfere with that. The United Nations government has no right to pick and choose its religion, or enforce that religions beliefs on other nations.

Your christian inspired legislation creates a type of discriminatory behavior that is strongly frowned upon by our nation, and quite frankly we find these proposals deplorable for enforcing such behavior on some 37,000 nations who likely do not share your beliefs. This kind of nonsense has been tried before, in many different forms, which is probably why other nations are treating you with much less respect than you deserve. Please take your religious law back where it belongs: your own country. Not that it even belongs there.

In addition, the vast number of your other rebuttals tend to be extremely abusive, going so far as to put the opposition on the side of "The Antichrist". Firstly, making your opposers out to be some kind of massive enemy of religion (even if a few rise to the bait) is not going to make their arguments untrue. Secondly, put down the Left Behind novels. Right now. Religious sci-fi has no use in NS, especially considering the moderately secularist tendency of the U.N. Also, they're really awful books. that was a joke! and if you think my comments are abusive, then listen to a political debate in the House of Representives. My comments are no more abusive then any of my opponents.


Here are my final words to you, on the subject of all of your proposals in general: It is the opinion of Pojonia that legislation based off of religious morality has no place in government. By imposing a morality based off of your religious beliefs (as you said specifically in the thread title), you are enforcing that your religious beliefs are the correct ones, and therefore that those that disagree with you are not. that is simply not true. Read the proposals for yourself. There is nothing in them even about morality. None of them are moral issues, not a single one. Why can nobody see this?

Your christian inspired legislation creates a type of discriminatory behavior that is strongly frowned upon by our nation, and quite frankly we find these proposals deplorable for enforcing such behavior on some 37,000 nations who likely do not share your beliefs. My belief in religous freedom you mean!

This kind of nonsense has been tried before, in many different forms, which is probably why other nations are treating you with much less respect than you deserve. Please take your religious law back where it belongs: your own country. Not that it even belongs there. Forget the Religious Right, stop tarring all Christians with the same brush. People should not let the fact they have been hurt by Christians in the past let them make jugdements about my nation.

What about the nations that don't believe in Christianity?

What about the nations that don't believe in Christianity?
Greetings.

Sadly, we believe that now all of us who have accessed this thread do. It exists here at least in the form of some sort of politico-religious doctrine expounded on at great length by one of our colleagues in this assembly.

I hope you take your own advice. You accused me of trying to force Christianity onto other nations, when you cannot prove this. There is as much (or even more)support for my accusation that you are prejudice against Christianity as there is that I am trying to force religious beliefs onto other countries.

By all appearances, you are. This appears to be part of a plot to get your nation's religion established as backed by the UN before slowly eroding the resolutions that disagree with it. Hell, it's something I would do.

My evidence is in your actions and the style of your replies. They have only a 5% match to the typical style of someone actually intending what they say. The defensiveness and accusations not actually based on what you are replying to indicates a 90% chance of not bothering to read the replies. The further accusations against people instead of responding to what they say, combined with the irrelevant information about what political party you support in real life and your nation's history, indicate a 60% chance of the claims being desperate attempts to establish yourself as something you're not. These, combined with the DLE System of Troll ratings, combines to produce an 80% percent chance that you are attempting deception and a 71% chance you are a troll. As such, I must skip straight to the end and simply call you one.

As per the ruling of GMC on the issue of trolls, calling a person a troll is not flaming. Please check the following link to see the ruling for yourself: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423577

If you disagree with the ruling, please feel free to take it up with the mod who made it.

Incidently I am a Democrat in real life and I strongly dislike George W Bush and his Republican Party.

And I really don't give a damn. I vote based on the people, not the party, and have no reason to automatically classify you as something just because you vote for a certain party. I know people who vote against Bush because he's not conservative enough (he was actually once accused of less of a Republican than Kerry).

By all appearances, you are. This appears to be part of a plot to get your nation's religion established as backed by the UN before slowly eroding the resolutions that disagree with it. Hell, it's something I would do.
Thats your opinion and I can understand that. Alot of the defensiveness is out of annoyance of being misunderstood. I have no issue with disagreement, its when people say "your just out to impose Christianity on the world" it really annoys me. I would be okay with someone saying "I dont trust your motives, so i'm skeptical". But for people to say YOUR A RELIGIOUS NUT really is annoying.

If you want to ensure that I wont use the resolutions to impose Christian beliefs you can keep reading all the proposals I make and you have the right to vote against it and encourage others to do so.

If you want to ensure that I wont use the resolutions to impose Christian beliefs you can keep reading all the proposals I make and you have the right to...encourage others to do so.

That's what he's doing by debating/disagreeing with you. :p

Thats your opinion and I can understand that. Alot of the defensiveness is out of annoyance of being misunderstood. I have no issue with disagreement, its when people say "your just out to impose Christianity on the world" it really annoys me. I would be okay with someone saying "I dont trust your motives, so i'm skeptical". But for people to say YOUR A RELIGIOUS NUT really is annoying.

This is the sound of the world's smallest violen. It's playing your tune.

If you want to ensure that I wont use the resolutions to impose Christian beliefs you can keep reading all the proposals I make and you have the right to vote against it and encourage others to do so.

Meh. Why waste my time? Most proposals have no chance anyway. You'll just be adding to the list.

This is the sound of the world's smallest violen. It's playing your tune.
And here is the world's smallest violin.
http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/Smilies/nopityA.gif

That is it, as soon as me and Halberdgardia finish that space elevator we are leaving this planet. Good-bye suckers!

Thats rubbish. To say that this proposal discriminates against atheists is like saying that a womans right to have an abortion discriminates against men. Its not my fault if atheists dont have a Holy Day. In fact if they want to they can choose their own special day just for atheists.
It may not be your fault, but mandating a day that religious people can use and not atheists is clear discrimination, and is open to severe abuse. Employers could easily deny atheists the day off. Also, having a day for atheists alone is still bad. This treats atheism as a religious movement, and this is a false position we cannot support.


This is wrong. Just because one is atheist doesnt mean they are not spiritual. I know an atheist who is spiritual. Everyone needs time to reflect and think about their life. It could also be used as a way of quietening down a class after lunch time. Children could also be offered the chance to read a book or magazine. Everyone needs some quiet time.
That's what home is for. School is for learning.


I feel the current resolution to be poorly written and open to abuse. It has made it illegal for someone state that they believe that their beliefs are right and it opens the door for people in a dangerous cult where they practice human sacrifice to claim cultural persecution when the police try to arrest them.
I agree the resolution may be open to abuse. But it is also subject to other UN resolutions and basic law. And there is still no better option.

*tap tap tap*

Hi, just a Mod stopping by.

What we have here is a failure to communicate (properly). We have a lot of OOC/IC blurring going on here. Kingdom of Heaven, is primarily arguing in an OOC manner, which is acceptable in this forum. Countering OOC points with fake IC ignorance is weak, a poor debating tactic, and really quite silly.

Please stop doing that.

Fass, for example, argued that KoH's understanding of the to-be-repealed Resolution was flawed. That's the proper way to go about things. When one mentions holocaust deniers as an example of the abuses Article 3 opens, asking "What's the holocaust" makes it look like you have no responce, and are using IC ignorance as a cop out.

Remember, this forum is both IC and OOC. Real world references are banned in Proposals, not on this forum.

Sabbath Day Off

All workers in countries run by the UN should have the right have one day a week off for religious reasons. Whilst companies have the right to be open 7 days a week, people of all faiths should have the right to refuse to on the holy day of their religion without fear of losing their job or being discriminated against.

However to prevent non-religious people from using this as an excuse to bunk off work, people taking such a day off a week must present a signed letter from their Pastor, Priest, Rabbi, Iman or other religious leader. Clergy are exempt because they have to work on their holy day.

An example of how this will work is that church-going Christians have the right to refuse to work on a Sunday.

Not every nation has religions, also you are speaking of RL religions. This is NS. While most people bring their personal beliefs to NS, based on their morals/values and/or religions, I think it is to specific to mention real-life religions whether they are Christian inspired or not.

That being said, I was surprised that you included other religions as well. Bravo.


School Prayer

All children at schools all over the UN should have the right to at least 5 minutes of prayer time at school everyday, even if they are in a state school.

To prevent compromising the separation of church and state, this prayer time does not have to be led by a teacher and directed at a particular God. But 5 minutes of silence will help bring spirituality into the lives of children so that they grow up as strong, happy and wise human beings.

No. This infringes on the right to not believe in anything at all. Prayer time, quiet time, whatever you call it should be up to the individual nation and their school board - if they even have one. (My nation doesn't really have school).

The seperation of church and state border lines on RL. How do you know that every nation has divided the two?

Also, I don't agree with the last bit saying that children will grow up strong, happy and wise just because they are forced to sit in silence or pray to some God they may or may not believe in. There is no evidence that children without five minutes of prayer time in school would grow up weak, unhappy and stupid.

Freedom for Missionaries

All UN countries must allow people of all faiths to share their beliefs with anyone who will listen. Therefore religious missionaries should be allowed to enter and work in all countries without fear.

People shall have the freedom of faith, freedom of non-faith and the freedom to spread faith.

Absolutly not. I base this opinion on RL history which shows that missionaries did a lot more damage than good to different cultures that they invaded and "saved".

I personally do not want missionaries to invade my nation and change it into their image, as it is My nation and it will be in My image. Missionaries are not welcome here.


Repeal of Rights for Minorities and Women

Whilst I agree all people are equal, parts of this resolution stinks of political correctness and postmodernism.

Article III in particular is absurd and discriminates againsts people that believe in absolute truth. (such as born-again Christians) Of course some beliefs are more right and better than others. Democracy for example is superior to fascism and people who deny the holocaust are more wrong than believe who do accept the holocaust.

I am not going to bother to look up this resolution, quotes would be handy. Stating your personal beliefs in a proposal weakens your arguments in my veiw, IMHO, as it is not really about the proposal, and is using the proposal to state off-topic opinions.

This article causes the criminalisation of Christianity whose founder Jesus Christ claimed to be the 'one and only way' to God. This article must be removed for its intolerance of evangelical Christians and other non-post-modern groups.

How? Again, not looking it up. Quote and explain your opinion on the quote.

The fact that you have used the phrase 'all people are created equal' and used the word 'created' discriminates against atheists who do not believe we were created.

What would you perfer? Spawned? Grown? Created does not always refer to God doing something. If I were to get pregnant than my partner and I "created" a baby. God had no part in that, as I am not Christian (I'm not anything). Restricting the word "created" to only be used in reference to God is clearly more discriminating.

Article I is right when it says no race is better than another. However clearly some cultures are better than others. A peaceful democracy is superior to a warlike tribe of cannibals who perform human sacrifice.

It is all a matter of perspective.

Just like how the RL europeans believed that the natives of North America were "savages". That isn't right, and I will protect those warlike tribes of cannibals who perform human sacrifices from the missionaries of your "peaceful democracy" of medlers.

Societies should evolve at their own rate, and interference should be kept to a minimum. Perhaps they will evolve into a true peaceful democracy, you never know.

Races may seem less or more technologically, socially, and/or economically different from one another, but it is their right to live as they choose whether or not we perceive it as "right" or "wrong".

Obviously, the people within our region will have to obey our laws, but I am speaking about the judgment of one nation from another.

Fass, for example, argued that KoH's understanding of the to-be-repealed Resolution was flawed. That's the proper way to go about things. When one mentions holocaust deniers as an example of the abuses Article 3 opens, asking "What's the holocaust" makes it look like you have no responce, and are using IC ignorance as a cop out.

Which of course completely misses the point that the question about the holocaust was used as a device to show how very irrelevant I found RL events to be to the repercussions of this resolution as pertains to us, the nations of the UN, and misses the fact that the "holocaust denial" was, later on in the same post, properly addressed and explained to be a freedom of speech/expression matter that had nothing to do with this resolution anyway. Context.