NationStates Jolt Archive

The Free Land of CTerryland's President was perusing the proposed UN Resolutions today and noted one. It was 'Repeal "Sexual Freedom"' and it said quite simply the following: Description: UN Resolution #7: Sexual Freedom (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: GOD did NOT want people to be gay you will be going against god's wishes by doing so

The President is a big fan of the Sexual Freedom resolution, and was puzzled by this. God seemed out of place in the UN, a multi-lateral organisation featuring many nations that are incredibly diverse in beliefs. Surely repealing a resolution on the basis of religion went against the spirit of the UN? It would be a sort of religious imperialism.

This resolution has, we are glad to say, absolutely no chance of reaching quorum, but the Free Land of CTerryland's search of the UN Resolution basis albeit not as heavy as it could of been seemed to find no indication that any such resolution would be illegal. Any resolution where religion was used as a justification would still be legal under UN law. This worried the Free Land of CTerryland. We believe whole-heartedly that nations have the right to implement Seperation of Church and State to whatever degree they see fit, but the UN? The UN as we have already stated is an international organisation featuring every mixture of belief possible, from Dictatorial Religious States to Anarchist states. Surely seperation of Church and UN is a necessary implementation, to stop the creation of one all-powerful religious viewpoint, and so that resolutions of this type can be struck down before they potentially reach quorum and place religion over liberty, and pragmatism.

The Free Land of CTerryland has, however, never created a resolution that has managed to get a decent amount of approvals, and a resolution with such importance should be handled correctly we believe. It is therefore the Free Land of CTerryland's wish that a more experienced, UN member should write the proposal, to give the best resolution possibly. This is not a proposal that the Free Land of CTerryland would like to see repealed for being poorly written.

The Free Land of CTerryland thanks you for your time.

Can you do that without outlawing theocracy?

Can you do that without outlawing theocracy?

Certainly. That's the easy part, considering that he's applying the separation to only one international body in particular. The hard part is avoiding an explicit limitation on UN powers. What will be needed is a clause like so in a Political Stability resolution:

DECLARES that the United Nations and/or its representatives will at no time use religion or religious concepts in and of themselves as a justification for taking action.

I'm not sure even this would do it. You might have to reword to a positive statement that would have a similar effect.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Indeed that was the trouble I was finding. That was why I wanted someone better with legal language to write it.

Indeed that was the trouble I was finding. That was why I wanted someone better with legal language to write it.

Well, you've come to the write place. :)

That was a bad pun, I know.

With all due respect is this really even necessary? Even if someone did make a religious proposal, especially one to stifle other beliefs, I guarantee it would be voted down. Libertarians and socialists alike would never let something like that pass, the theocratically ruled nations are a radical minority, and quite few and far between from what I have seen.

Here's my proposed key clause:

DECLARES that all nations and persons have the right to be free of actions by the United Nations that are justified by religion or religious concepts.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

And even if it passes, we'll still see people trying to repeal or pass proposals based upon religion. However, if the key clause TH is suggesting is used, it'll make it so that one actually has to justify something using real arguments rather than trying a "trump all" bible thump - and would assist in protecting the rights of....well.....those that don't believe in the religion of the state.

With all due respect is this really even necessary? Even if someone did make a religious proposal, especially one to stifle other beliefs, I guarantee it would be voted down. Libertarians and socialists alike would never let something like that pass, the theocratically ruled nations are a radical minority, and quite few and far between from what I have seen.That might be true now, but what about the future? It might just be me but it seems to me that religion is becoming a more and more powerful force in the world. Do we not, as leaders, owe it to future generations of citizens to protect them from a UN that could potentially unilaterally impose religious viewpoints. At this way there will be an extra barrier in the way if this were to happen (in that they'd have to spend time and energy on repeal this resolution first)

Speaking as a theocratic state, it has been Our observation from attending NSUN debates that the greater threat lies not in the NSUN imposing a particular religious viewpoint on its member states, but in the NSUN passing legislation that infringes on the religious practices of those states.

More humility, not more legislation, is called for here.

Speaking as a theocratic state, it has been Our observation from attending NSUN debates that the greater threat lies not in the NSUN imposing a particular religious viewpoint on its member states, but in the NSUN passing legislation that infringes on the religious practices of those states.

More humility, not more legislation, is called for here.
Well I don't have any problem if you want to ban abortion in your own country for example (though I do believe that would be illegal under current UN legislature) I just don't want you to ban abortion across the UN.

OK how's this as a resolution:

The UN NOTING that the world is a diverse, multi-cultural place with many differences in opinion between member states.

FEARFUL of the possibility of UN resolutions forcing religious doctrine onto member states and therefore ignoring the diversity of beliefs in the UN.

RECOGNISING a member states right to inact theocratic laws

DECLARES that all nations and persons have the right to be free of actions by the United Nations that are justified by religion or religious concepts.

Any thoughts?

I'm assuming by the silence that no one has any objections. This proposal is now up for approval! Will any one who agrees with it please approve it :)

The only concern with this proposal I have is it's legality. This could possibly be interpreted by the moderators as limiting the powers of the UN. I know that it's really not intending to do that, but if someone has a proposal based solely on religous arguments... they can't really submit it without being in violation of this. It also makes it a bit hard to repeal this if it does pass, because you would almost have to use religous arguments against it, which would be in violation of the resolution you're trying to repeal... a bit of a catch-22.

I personally think that this is a good idea. I'm just not so sure the mods will agree.

I'm in agreement with Hersfold

Hack?

I'm pretty sure you could revoke it by saying that it impacts on religious or moral rights. If a mod strikes it down though then so be it.

I've endorsed it.

If it doesn't pass the legality test, please don't give up on the idea. Its a good one :).

If this comes to vote I think there is a good chance that we will vote yes on it.

I do have one small problem though.

DECLARES that all nations and persons have the right to be free of actions by the United Nations that are justified by religion or religious concepts.
Maybe you might want to think about rewording that a little bit. Some people might not read it over really good ( :headbang: ) and might take it as saying that the UN can't ban/stop/etc anything that is "justified by religion or religious concepts."

Just a thought though. :)

The only concern with this proposal I have is it's legality. This could possibly be interpreted by the moderators as limiting the powers of the UN. I know that it's really not intending to do that, but if someone has a proposal based solely on religous arguments... they can't really submit it without being in violation of this.

We unfortunately have to concur with the esteemed delegate of Hersfold. While Our NSUN delegation has not been commissioned by Our Conclave of Friendship to propose a resolution yet, We reserve the right to do so. Due to the theocratic nature of Our government, would not any proposal Our delegation made be de facto a religious argument?

We unfortunately have to concur with the esteemed delegate of Hesford. While Our NSUN delegation has not been commissioned by Our Conclave of Friendship to propose a resolution yet, We reserve the right to do so. Due to the theocratic nature of Our government, would not any proposal Our delegation made be de facto a religious argument?
Only if you use religious concepts to back it up. If you said 'Send money to poorer countries because God says to help others' then that would be using a religious concept to back up an argument. If you said 'Send to poorer countries to alleviate the suffering of the worlds poorest people' that would be perfectly fine, no matter who it came from.

A religious argument is an argument that is basically trying to persuade people to choose your opinion because something that they may or may not believe in (eg: God, bible, Budda, Zeus, The Almighty Conclave of the 13 suns, etc) says or believes in something. To argue for your religious beliefs using actual arguments (deterioration of families, human rights, beating up the little guy, doggie pileing the big guy, etc) is not the same thing.

Basically, it is not what you believe, but why you believe it that we're trying to limit as legitamite arguments.

I'm pretty sure you could revoke it by saying that it impacts on religious or moral rights. If a mod strikes it down though then so be it.

Yes, chances are it's fine, because as has been mentioned, you can still skip your way around the religous bits. Again, sorry to bring all this up, I just don't want you getting nailed by the mods for a proposal I actually agree with (Which doesn't happen often - sometimes I go plowing through the list looking for illegal ones). If it doesn't get enough approvals this time around, you may want to run it by the mods before re-submitting it again. If you ask them about it and it is illegal, they won't issue you a warning.

Good luck!

P.S. - I'll mention this to my region's Delegate. He'll probably approve it.