NationStates Jolt Archive

While recognition of religious beliefs is important, it is vital to understand that these religious beliefs have no true basis.

These beliefs are therefore invalid as arguments in any debate.

As a democratic government’s purpose is to debate governmental procedures, laws, and regulations. It is therefore logical that religious beliefs are invalid as arguments in such democratic governments.

Having established that religion should not interfere with governmental decisions, the following rules are laid out:

1. Governments shall not act for, upon, or due to any religious organizations.
2. Politicians be prohibited to use, mention, or otherwise relate to religious beliefs, rules, or customs in political speeches, during parliament, or otherwise in any instances directly or indirectly effecting governmental decision, action, stance, or policy.
3. No nation should make laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
4. No laws shall make any direct or indirect reference to religious beliefs.
5. No reference shall be made to any religion in or on national assets including but not limited to parliament, courthouses, and currency (such as bills and coins).
6. All laws, governmental decisions, actions, or policies must be based upon factual issues and considerations.
7. All laws, governmental decisions, actions, or policies shall be reviewed periodically to ensure the continual separation of Church and State.
8. Any organization, individual, or intelligent entity proven to violate the above rules shall be sentenced to one year to lifetime imprisonment depending upon the severity of offence, as judged on a case to case basis.

Signed,
Chen Shen
High ambassador of the nation of SeeEss
On this first day of September, in the year 2005, Common Era.

Could be found towards the end of the proposals list as of this post.

Surely this is Illegal due to the game violation of the Hackian laws!

Ideological Bans

Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, christians, atheist, or any other political, religous, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's descretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.

im not banning religion, im saying that governments may not act upon religous beliefs.

"Separation" is the keyword, not "Ban"

I have studied all the rules carefully before submitting it, of course.

Could the esteemed delegate from SeeEss explain how the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii, as the duly instituted government of Our nation, is expected to function under such a resolution?

im not banning religion, im saying that governments may not act upon religous beliefs.

"Separation" is the keyword, not "Ban"

I have studied all the rules carefully before submitting it, of course.
While you would not be banning religion, you would be in effect banning theocracies, which is a rule violation.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We'll wait for a moderator to make that decision why dont we.

I am simply stating that a democratic government may not operate under religious influence, and thus proposing the separation of Church and State.

Surely in violation of the Hackian laws? Give it the litmus. Ask Hack.

On the antagonistic side, I tested these boundaries very carefully myself until I worked out exactly where I thought would be the most effective seperation that could be offered within U.N. rules. Then I wrote a proposal regarding that. Then I found out there are three or four resolutions that cover ALL of that. We're actually pretty cool on this issue, and I don't know if we can go any further without stepping on toes in a bad way and/or violating the rules.

I guess I can see your point there, would it be better if I were to amend it to say that All democratic countries need to follow it? Therefore theocracies would still be theocracies

While you would not be banning religion, you would be in effect banning theocracies, which is a rule violation.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

3. No nation should make laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.


Even as a Theocracy we of Zeldon would never support this proposal because we see a grave danger in giving any Church a free reign to practice their faith.. As many pagan faiths perform acts of such vulgar nature as to be crimes against all mankind. All in the name of their faith.. If the Church is not willing to be a part of a civil society it need not be allowed to exist. We see today murder in the name of some pagan God all the time. To give them more freedom than already present would mean they can do more crimes against those they feel are not of their faith all in the name of that faith.

As the State has laws so must a Church they must not be separate because each share a common membership as citizens of both Church and State... To exist in both one must compromise at times on things to keep the peace between the one... the citizen.. member of both Church and State.


The only way to have a perfect separation of Church and State is to not have one of them... As long as citizens go to Church then how they think about State issues will be based on what they got in Church.

The proposal makes no sense.

There have been in many democratic countries religious parties or religiously-inclined leaders who daily make judgements based on their religious convictions.

This resolution clearly does not work for any Islamic-law state, nor for a nation where the head of state is also the head of the national religion.

Nor for states where the governments sponsor worship and religious leaders within their ranks.

Consider the democratically-elected governments who, for instance, embed chaplains within their ranks to minister to the religiously-inclined members of their armed forces?

Yet foremost to the objectionable content of the proposal is the initial logical fallacy, "that these religious beliefs have no true basis."

Who is Chen Shen, or who are these people of SeeEss to judge that all religions, globally, after thousands of years of development, billions of followers, and countless hours of prayer and devout works, have no "true basis?"

What truer basis do they need to have than that they have inspired their devotees and leaders on a life-long basis, sustained them generation after generation, through times of joy, everyday life, crisis and need, and typically have outlasted any secular government on the known planet(s)?

This proposal is not simply fallacious, it is utterly futile. You cannot legislate away people's convictions, philosophies, or beliefs, no matter how much you disagree with them or fail to understand them.

I needed a name for an ambassador so I put my own name there :P