NationStates Jolt Archive

I lack endorsements, but I figure - what the hell....


Noting that the UN has displayed repeated contempt for various religions of the world,

Noting that a vast number of nations believe some religions encourage violance and the extermination of all other religions,

Noting that while the ideals of "Religious Tolerance" are laudable, other resolutions have shown those ideals to be held in contempt,

The Resolution "Religious Tolerance" is hereby repealed



Noting that the goals of "Rights of Minorities and Women" are to be strived for,

However Noting that the actual text of the resolution is almost toothless,

Also noting that the text of the resolution is open to interpretation that could easily be used to remove more rights than it grants,

The Resolution "Rights Of Minorities And Women" is hereby repealed



Noting that the world is a dangerous place and a nation's weakest point is it's border,

Noting that with advancing technology, clearing minefields is a lost easier than it used to be,

Noting that, since the UN no longer gives protection to dolphins, their corpses can be used to detonate mines,

and noting that while landmines can be dangerous, there are a lot of legitimate uses for them,

The Resolution "Banning the use of Landmines" is hereby repealed


So - what d'y'all think?


(Note - I might have been kidding about using dolphin corpses....)

So - what d'y'all think?You are to be lauded and held high as a bastion of Free thinking and idealmism. YAY!

Hang on a sec! im a lefty tree hugger Liberal type...... Strike last statement!

You should be tied to a Pyre and burned at the stake but it would hurt the Trees. Shame on you! BOO!

:D

You are to be lauded and held high as a bastion of Free thinking and idealmism. YAY!


I am actually one of those. Despite what it might appear....


Hang on a sec! im a lefty tree hugger Liberal type...... Strike last statement!


(smirk) Me too :}


You should be tied to a Pyre and burned at the stake but it would hurt the Trees. Shame on you! BOO!
:D

Eh. I honestly think that the first two are now pointless, and the third one -- well more of a judgement call.

Well then if yer gonna go all serious on me... Lets have a Look


Noting that the UN has displayed repeated contempt for various religions of the world,

Noting that a vast number of nations believe some religions encourage violance and the extermination of all other religions,

Noting that while the ideals of "Religious Tolerance" are laudable, other resolutions have shown those ideals to be held in contempt,

The Resolution "Religious Tolerance" is hereby repealed
In My Nation religion is of no consequence. However we do feel that if you wish to say all hail lord bob, the god of Used nation sales i say bully for you. Therefore it still has relevance and should not be repealed.


Noting that the goals of "Rights of Minorities and Women" are to be strived for,

However Noting that the actual text of the resolution is almost toothless,

Also noting that the text of the resolution is open to interpretation that could easily be used to remove more rights than it grants,

The Resolution "Rights Of Minorities And Women" is hereby repealed
Almost toothless? Its gummy! Repeal please and put something back other than dentures!

Noting that the world is a dangerous place and a nation's weakest point is it's border,

Noting that with advancing technology, clearing minefields is a lost easier than it used to be,

Noting that, since the UN no longer gives protection to dolphins, their corpses can be used to detonate mines,

and noting that while landmines can be dangerous, there are a lot of legitimate uses for them,

The Resolution "Banning the use of Landmines" is hereby repealed

This is IMO a Keeper. Advancing tech! Arse! the mines are also subject to advancing tech which makes them harder to locate. Lob a dolphin? Im all for it. As long as you keep within the limits applied by UNCoESB. Legitimate Uses?? Keeping unwanted invaders off your land while subsequently keeping your own people off your land for fear of loosing their goolies? Hardly legitimate in the latter case?
As for all three i say in order.....
KEEP/ REPEAL/ KEEP.


OOC. Where is everyone tonight? Has someone had a party and not invited VL and Pallatium? I mean you not getting an Invite i understand......:D

If ya wanna detonate minefields, I can get you a cut rate on kamikazi penguins!:D The little buggers just love to blow themselves up. Its what they live for.;)

excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I would support a repeal/replace of "Rights of Minorities and Women". Not too keen on repealing the other two.

I've always been against Rights of Minorities and Women. I can't stand it. Will support most repeals of it.

The other two - I'm extremely unlikely to ever support repeals of either.

Religious Tolerance :- Several UN resolutions appear to indicate that lack of tolerance that the UN has with various religious views. It doesn't accept some religions dislike homosexual activity (Gay Rights, Sexual Freedom), it doesn't accept that some religions abhor birth control and abortion (The Sex Education Act, Abortion Rights), it doesn't accept various religious doctrines (Right To Learn About Evolution, Female Genital Mutilation, Legalize Euthanasia) and overrides some religious courts (Fair Trial et al)

Now don't get me wrong - I support all (or almost all) of the above resolutions, as they do enforce human rights on a large scale.

However every single one of them ignores religious ideals, and indicates that there are somethings that superceed religious beliefs.

So why is the UN pretending it tolerates various religions, when clearly it only tolerates certain parts of certain religions.

At the very least it should be repealed and replaced with one that is far more honest.

Landmines : Yeah. Won't ever happen.

Rights of Women/etc : Obviously its nonsense, so go repeal.

Religious Tolerance :- Several UN resolutions appear to indicate that lack of tolerance that the UN has with various religious views. It doesn't accept some religions dislike homosexual activity (Gay Rights, Sexual Freedom), it doesn't accept that some religions abhor birth control and abortion (The Sex Education Act, Abortion Rights), it doesn't accept various religious doctrines (Right To Learn About Evolution, Female Genital Mutilation, Legalize Euthanasia) and overrides some religious courts (Fair Trial et al)

Actually, so far as I know, none of those resolutions actually "shows a lack of teolerance" of religions, or "doesn't accept some religions dislike of [insert morally judged action]". In my eyes, all they do are say that the government has no place enforcing these religious beleifs. Not accepting religious beliefs and seperating religious beliefs from government are two completely seperate things.

Religious Tolerance :- Several UN resolutions appear to indicate that lack of tolerance that the UN has with various religious views. It doesn't accept some religions dislike homosexual activity (Gay Rights, Sexual Freedom), it doesn't accept that some religions abhor birth control and abortion (The Sex Education Act, Abortion Rights), it doesn't accept various religious doctrines (Right To Learn About Evolution, Female Genital Mutilation, Legalize Euthanasia) and overrides some religious courts (Fair Trial et al)

Now don't get me wrong - I support all (or almost all) of the above resolutions, as they do enforce human rights on a large scale.

However every single one of them ignores religious ideals, and indicates that there are somethings that superceed religious beliefs.

Rubbish. People who adhere to religions that prohibit these things are free not to do them. People who don't aren’t bound by the rules of a religion they do not follow.

Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion.
Promoting tolerance and understanding. It does not say people must adhere to their rules. It doesn't even give the right to practise religion.

Be it further resolved that the United Nations oppose all wars fought in the name of God and religion.
Still nothing.

I don't see a conflict.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

ETA: Sorry PC didn't see you there.

Actually, so far as I know, none of those resolutions actually "shows a lack of teolerance" of religions, or "doesn't accept some religions dislike of [insert morally judged action]". In my eyes, all they do are say that the government has no place enforcing these religious beleifs. Not accepting religious beliefs and seperating religious beliefs from government are two completely seperate things.

Firstly - what about Theocratic nations, where the government is the religion?

And secondly - I disagree. We are saying that "we will tolerate your religion, as long as nothing you want your followers to do annoys us, then we will overule your religion and make you accept our defintion what is right and wrong whatever your goddesses might think"

That's not exactly tolerance.

Firstly - what about Theocratic nations, where the government is the religion?

And secondly - I disagree. We are saying that "we will tolerate your religion, as long as nothing you want your followers to do annoys us, then we will overule your religion and make you accept our defintion what is right and wrong whatever your goddesses might think"

That's not exactly tolerance.
Well that's not exactly what religious tolerance says.

Whereas, Freedom of Religion does not exist in all countries in the world. Whereas, Too many wars are started and fought because of religious differences.

Whereas, There is a need for more religious tolerance on Earth. Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion .

Be it further resolved that the United Nations oppose all wars fought in the name of God and religion.

[emphasis mine]

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Well that's not exactly what religious tolerance says.


Whereas, Freedom of Religion does not exist in all countries in the world. Whereas, Too many wars are started and fought because of religious differences.

Whereas, There is a need for more religious tolerance on Earth. Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion .

.Be it further resolved that the United Nations oppose all wars fought in the name of God and religion


[emphasis mine]

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

And the parts in bold are the issue -

promote a greater understanding - that I have no issue with.

promote more tolerance of differences of religion - this is just (with no offence intended) utter crap. The UN does not promote more tolerence of differences of religion - it entirely destroys them by enforcing standard laws on everyone. If it promoted tolerance it would not be trying to force religions to accept definitions of marriage, or forcing them to accept abortion or forcing them to teach about contraception.

the United Nations oppose all wars fought in the name of God and religion - this is either entirely unworkable or a lie or entirely pointless. Anyone who fights generally fights with the idea that their divine being is on their side. And given that "God" is capitilzed, then if I fight in the name of my goddessess, I am not inviolation of this. Anyone who fights in the name of anyone other than "God" (Kali, Allah, my goddessess, Cthulu etc) is not violating this.

And given that the phrase is "in the name of God and religion" it would imply that even if I fight in the name of my religion, since I am not fighting in the name of "God" I am not in violation.

Come to think of it - this is a proposal that seeks to expand the understanding of religions, and yet it only seeks to mention one of the deities in it? How tolerant is that?

(OOC: Allah is an arabic translation of God. Other examples are accepted.)

We agree with Pallatium. The UN does not respect its own idea of religious tolerance. Instead of letting religions do their thing, the UN is trying to create a new religion: UNism and is forcing it upon us. We think that UNism should not be forced upon us, and that UNism should show more tolerance of other religions.

promote more tolerance of differences of religion - this is just (with no offence intended) utter crap. The UN does not promote more tolerence of differences of religion - it entirely destroys them by enforcing standard laws on everyone. If it promoted tolerance it would not be trying to force religions to accept definitions of marriage, or forcing them to accept abortion or forcing them to teach about contraception.
Tolerance does not equal adherence. The don't have to 'accept' anything. Against abortion then don't have one. They can't force adherence on others but that's hardly intolerant. That's protecting everybody's freedom of religion.

the United Nations oppose all wars fought in the name of God and religion - this is either entirely unworkable or a lie or entirely pointless. Anyone who fights generally fights with the idea that their divine being is on their side. And given that "God" is capitilzed, then if I fight in the name of my goddessess, I am not inviolation of this. Anyone who fights in the name of anyone other than "God" (Kali, Allah, my goddessess, Cthulu etc) is not violating this.
It would be illegal under current rules anyway.

And given that the phrase is "in the name of God and religion" it would imply that even if I fight in the name of my religion, since I am not fighting in the name of "God" I am not in violation.

Come to think of it - this is a proposal that seeks to expand the understanding of religions, and yet it only seeks to mention one of the deities in it? How tolerant is that?
The term grasping at straws comes to mind.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Tolerance does not equal adherence. The don't have to 'accept' anything. Against abortion then don't have one. They can't force adherence on others but that's hardly intolerant. That's protecting everybody's freedom of religion.

No, it isn't!

What if Hyrule (sorry Palltium) believes, well, that nobody should have an abortion, because abortion is wrong. It is tolerant of all religions, but they are against abortion. Okay, its obivous they don't do it. But they don't want others to do it. (To them, it's like saying, "We don't murder, but, hey, you can!")

The resolutions for abortion is wrong, plain wrong, against their religion. Hyrule is mad, obivously.


It would be illegal under current rules anyway.

Wars? I'm fought a peacekeeping war in ZP, and am fighting a peacekeeping war in Kilani. Wars are allowed...by the way...in the II fourms (the only way to fight wars)

The term grasping at straws comes to mind.

So? He's right. The UN is INTOLERANT of other religions!

Maybe, instead of repealing the resolution, a new resolution be drafted saying no UN Resolution should be passed that can suppress a religious group. It wouldn't be retroactive, but the resolution will call for ealier repeals. At the least, it will stop the spread of UNism!

Tolerance does not equal adherence. The don't have to 'accept' anything. Against abortion then don't have one. They can't force adherence on others but that's hardly intolerant. That's protecting everybody's freedom of religion.


I would disagree. By forcing nations to keep abortion legal, by forcing nations to accept euthanasia, by forcing nations to accept contraception and sex education, you are overriding their religious rights. the UN is basically saying "we tolerate your religious beliefs - that abortion is wrong, that suicide is wrong, that contraception is wrong - but we know better and are going to make you accpet OUR beliefs over your own"

Almost all of the resolutions passed enforce an idea of the UN placing a whole load of "agnostic" (for want of a better phrase) prinicples in to the UN. Eventually it will be so that while the UN accepts religions exist, they won't be actually able to function in a nation because of all the restrictions on them.

Why? Because some religions require punishment for various actions, and they are no longer permitted to do that because of the UN. And while that is fine and dandy - people should not be punished for the sexuality (for example) - the UN should not have the cheek to say it tolerates differences in various religions when it only does so when the differences don't bother anyone.


The term grasping at straws comes to mind.



Be honest - if this resolution was proposed now, it would not even make it to the floor let alone get passed.

Noting that the world is a dangerous place and a nation's weakest point is it's border,

Noting that with advancing technology, clearing minefields is a lost easier than it used to be,

Noting that, since the UN no longer gives protection to dolphins, their corpses can be used to detonate mines,

and noting that while landmines can be dangerous, there are a lot of legitimate uses for them,

The Resolution "Banning the use of Landmines" is hereby repealed

Isn't this a house of cards violation?

Isn't this a house of cards violation?

No. Repeals are, it appears, exempt from House Of Cards regulations.

Why? Because some religions require punishment for various actions, and they are no longer permitted to do that because of the UN. And while that is fine and dandy - people should not be punished for the sexuality (for example) - the UN should not have the cheek to say it tolerates differences in various religions when it only does so when the differences don't bother anyone.


I think that every principles or "punishment" (religious or not) should be justified.
A principle or a punishment is not justified by itself only because it's required by a religion, sorry.

Some religious beliefs ask that thief have a feet or an hand cut
Another asked that heretic be burned...

I don't want to criticize religions, as i think that religions can be good,
Most religion in love and esterel encourage love of each other, compation, knowledge, respect of differences, human rights ...

It seems to me that the drift is less between religious and non-religious principles, than between some religious and some other religious principles (or between some non-religious and some other non-religious principles)

I think that every principles or "punishment" (religious or not) should be justified.
A principle or a punishment is not justified by itself only because it's required by a religion, sorry.


Then you are pretty much saying that you will tolerate the ways of a religion unless you disagree with those ways, then the religion can go screw itself?

All religions do justify their punishments - "abortion is killing and therefore must be punished". "Laying with a man as you would with a woman is an abomination against god, and must be punished".

If you ask for more punishment, then you are not really accepting the beliefs of the religion, are you?


Some religious beliefs ask that thief have a feet or an hand cut
Another asked that heretic be burned...


And? Just because you disagree with them, does that give you the right to say you know better than they do?


I don't want to criticize religions, as i think that religions can be good,
Most religion in love and esterel encourage love of each other, compation, knowledge, respect of differences, human rights ...

It seems to me that the drift is less between religious and non-religious principles, than between some religious and some other religious principles (or between some non-religious and some other non-religious principles)

But the resolution says we have to "promote more tolerance of differences in religion" and yet you have quite blatantly said that you do not wish to accept the fact a religion has a set punishment for something. How do you justify reconciling those two views?

Why not we propose a new resolution?

DEFINE "religious tolerance" as respect and an understanding of differences between religions

MANDATES that "religious tolerance" means that bodies, goverment or non-government, cannot force their beliefs onto nations who believes in different religions, as doing so means the body has a lack of religious tolerance.

APPLUDAING UN resolutions that support "religious tolerance"

NOTING, however, that certain propsals adpoted by the UN or in the process of being adpoted displayed repeated contempt for various religions of the world and does not show any sign of "religious tolerance".

NOTING that while the idea of "religious tolerance" are laudable, other resolutions have shown contempt to this idea.

MANDATES that all future UN resolutions must not violate "religious tolerance"

STATES that this resolution does not apply to pervious resolutions.

SUGGESTS that resolutions prior to this resolution that do not show "religious tolerance" be repealed.

DEFINE "religious tolerance" as respect and an understanding of differences between religions

To tolerate something does not necessarily mean to either respect or understand it.

Your proposal comes very close to advocating moral relativism.

Be honest - if this resolution was proposed now, it would not even make it to the floor let alone get passed.
I wouldn't vote for it. I don't think it's worth going to the trouble of repealing it either.

Then you are pretty much saying that you will tolerate the ways of a religion unless you disagree with those ways, then the religion can go screw itself?

This sums up the policy of the Yeldan State in regards to religion. We tolerate it.

To tolerate something does not necessarily mean to either respect or understand it.

Your proposal comes very close to advocating moral relativism.

Firstly - it is not a proposal, it is a repeal - an attempt to remove a resolution already in the UN.

Secondly - I am saying that the UN does not practice moral relativism - it basically says "this is wrong, deal with it" and as such can make no pretence to either understand, respect, accept or even acknowledge that the varying nations in the UN have different religious beliefs.

Then you are pretty much saying that you will tolerate the ways of a religion unless you disagree with those ways, then the religion can go screw itself?

No i was just saying that religious and non-religious punishment ideas are on the same level, sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes true, sometimes wrong; the UN deals with them with the same approach.

There are thousands religious and non-religious beliefs in the world, good, bad, true or wrong, and many religious ones are the opposite to another belief from another religion or even the opposite to another belief in the same religion.

All religions do justify their punishments

Everyone, including non religious justify their punishments, we need to confront arguments by reason independently of these argumnts being religious or not



Some religious beliefs ask that thief have a feet or an hand cut
Another asked that heretic be burned...

Does the UN should not contradict these beliefs?

And? Just because you disagree with them, does that give you the right to say you know better than they do?

no, i donno better than they, and they donno better than others religion or non-religious people either

It's why every UN resolution is debated on the forum and then voted


But the resolution says we have to "promote more tolerance of differences in religion" and yet you have quite blatantly said that you do not wish to accept the fact a religion has a set punishment for something. How do you justify reconciling those two views?

The UN, every Nations, don't accept some punishment religious or not, there is absolutly no relation with tolerance of religious beliefs or non-religious beliefs, religion and non-religion principles are on the same level.

Pallatium, i donno if you are Christian or not

I have some knowledge of the New Testament (which is the main Christian reference) and

It seems to me that this book is often beautiful because it's more about love to each other, about compation, about forgiveness than about launching stone or “””punishment”””.

Pallatium, i donno if you are Christian or not

I have some knowledge of the New Testament (which is the main Christian reference) and

It seems to me that this book is often beautiful because it's more about love to each other, about compation, about forgiveness than about launching stone or “””punishment”””.

I'm joining this discussion late and apathetic. But we would support tolerance of religions about launching stone and ''''''punishment''''''.

Pallatium, i donno if you are Christian or not

I have some knowledge of the New Testament (which is the main Christian reference) and

It seems to me that this book is often beautiful because it's more about love to each other, about compation, about forgiveness than about launching stone or “””punishment”””.

(ooc, since Lily isn't) I was raised a christian, but then realised it was bollocks.

(ic, kind of even though Lily still isn't) The New Testament is certainly all about forgiveness and love, but you go read the Old Testament and it is about FIRE AND BRIMSTONE AND PUNISHING THE UNBELIEVERS.

Plus it wants witches killed, which is unforgivable :}


But that is not the point of the repeal - the point of the repeal is that all UN law - ALL UN LAW - is overriding religious laws in every nation, and yet it asks to accept the UN tolerates differences in religion. Which it doesn't - it just aims to obliterate them.

I disagree: to monumentally derail this thread for a moment, you have to read the OT pretty selectively to understand that witches should be killed. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" isn't commonly interpreted as being a justification for killing witches.

I disagree: to monumentally derail this thread for a moment, you have to read the OT pretty selectively to understand that witches should be killed. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" isn't commonly interpreted as being a justification for killing witches.

I would disagree with you (in an ooc way, obviously) and say that the old testement is one of the single most discriminatory, hate-filled pieces of text in the history of the world.

But - to get back to a topic befitting the UN and not (general) - the UN has displayed it's contempt for religion by forcing nations to accept laws that violate all sorts of religious teachings. So RT should be repealed.

OT is discriminatory and hate filled; I don't recall saying otherwise. I was picking up on your point about witches.

Anyway, I think I follow your logic, but I'm not sure I buy the idea of the repeal wholesale yet.

But that is not the point of the repeal - the point of the repeal is that all UN law - ALL UN LAW - is overriding religious laws in every nation, and yet it asks to accept the UN tolerates differences in religion. Which it doesn't - it just aims to obliterate them.


UN and national laws overrides religious and non-religious laws exactly with the same manner.

Then if you want that the UN and every Nations never overrides religious and non-religious laws, it's up to you, but this is called anarchy not "religion tolerance".

OT is discriminatory and hate filled; I don't recall saying otherwise. I was picking up on your point about witches.


(ooc)

Oh. That's okay then :}

(sorry)

(Also - a few friends of mine are witches)


Anyway, I think I follow your logic, but I'm not sure I buy the idea of the repeal wholesale yet.

The resolution does nothing except waste space and make the entire UN body look like hypocrites. I think it is time that was sorted out.

UN and national laws overrides religious and non-religious laws exactly with the same manner.

Then if you want that the UN and every Nations never overrides religious and non-religious laws, it's up to you, but this is called anarchy not "religion tolerance".

I don't want the UN not to override religious laws - I just want it to admit that if it is going to do that, it should stop pretending it cares about religious tolerance.

(Also - a few friends of mine are witches)

Same.

Anyway, I agree the resolution is hypocritical, but I don't believe removing it would accomplish anything. It at least presents something to be worked towards.

I don't want the UN not to override religious laws - I just want it to admit that if it is going to do that, it should stop pretending it cares about religious tolerance.


if i follow your logic:
The UN (and all nations) override religious laws and "non-religious thinking" laws

Then, the UN (and all nations) should also stop pretending they cares about religion tolerance and "non-religion thinking" tolerance :p

if i follow your logic:
you had to admit that the UN override also non-religious thinking laws
then, the UN should also stop pretending it cares about non-religion thinking tolerance:p

I am really sorry but I have NO idea what you mean.

If you mean that UN should stop pretending it cares about national sovereignty - well of course it should, but no where does it have a resolution that says "WE LOVE NATIONAL SOVEREINGTY AND WILL RESPECT IT" (as far as I am aware).

The whole purpose of the UN is to screw over national sovereignty.

But it says it respects differences in religions, and that is clearly a lie.

Rights and Duties? That affirms degrees of sovereignty.

Rights and Duties? That affirms degrees of sovereignty.

But only insofar as no UN laws override it - that part is made pretty clear.

If you can show me a corresponding clause in RT then I will call off this crusade (such a bad choice of words) in an instant.

But only insofar as no UN laws override it - that part is made pretty clear.

If you can show me a corresponding clause in RT then I will call off this crusade (such a bad choice of words) in an instant.

...there isn't one to show.

...there isn't one to show.

I did actually know that - I am not one for doing something so bold and potentially suicidal unless I am sure of the outcome :}

I did actually know that - I am not one for doing something so bold and potentially suicidal unless I am sure of the outcome :}

You don't say.

Anyway, you just won't get it passed. People will not be interested in your arguments that the UN has violating religious tolerance; they will assume you wish to do so further. Well, that's what I think, anyway. Good luck, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

That why I think my propsal idea has merit.

It prevents UN from ever legisating and interfering in matters of religion and allows for true religious tolerance to be enacted. The UN should not make any laws to stop suppressing and supersecding religions. I think that is a good idea and addresses what you say, Palltium. I also think it would be popluar.

That why I think my propsal idea has merit.

It prevents UN from ever legisating and interfering in matters of religion and allows for true religious tolerance to be enacted. The UN should not make any laws to stop suppressing and supersecding religions. I think that is a good idea and addresses what you say, Palltium. I also think it would be popluar.

Not all states have separation of church and state. And what of religious acts such as human sacrifice? Would this prevent a death penalty ban?

That why I think my propsal idea has merit.

It prevents UN from ever legisating and interfering in matters of religion and allows for true religious tolerance to be enacted. The UN should not make any laws to stop suppressing and supersecding religions. I think that is a good idea and addresses what you say, Palltium. I also think it would be popluar.

Ok - I think you have entirely missed my point.

I support abortion, gay rights, euthanasia and all sorts of other resolutions that trample up and down on religious tolerance. I don't think religion should be the defining voice in law and justice - far from it.

I am not going to support any motion to protect the lunatic religious ideas that come from all sides of the religious spectrums, and have no desire to.

And it's not just me that believes that - in every act the UN takes it defines my position as its position.

I just think we should stop pretending we care about what various religions think and admit we don't.

I don't want the UN not to override religious laws - I just want it to admit that if it is going to do that, it should stop pretending it cares about religious tolerance.


if i follow your logic:
The UN (and all nations) override religious laws and "non-religious thinking" laws

Then, the UN (and all nations) should also stop pretending they cares about religion tolerance and "non-religion thinking" tolerance

I am really sorry but I have NO idea what you mean.

Sorry, it was irony
i mean:

- it's not only religious laws that are overrided by the UN, but also "non-religious philosophy" laws; and

- it's not only the UN but also every nations in the world (including palatium i suppose) who override some religious and "non-religious philosophy" laws

Not All these "religious laws" and "non-religious philosophies laws" are good (see my examples), and
Many of these laws (religious and non-religious) are opposite

So, if you think national (and international) laws violate religious tolerance (and so in the same manner "non-religious philosophies"), then you are an anarchist, no pb, it's up to you;)

Pallatium,

I think you are attributing too high an ideal to the 'religious tolerance' resolution. I don't think it's meant to mean respect for all religious practices, even if they offend the concept of human rights; it's more an appeal to end oppression of a group on the basis of religion, which would be the case in a country which banned the worship of, say, Hinduism, or targetted these people for arrest, torture, etc.

On the other hand, that isn't to say that the UN should respect every single aspect of religious practice, if those practices are clearly contrary to natural law and justice.

Also, UN membership is a free choice.

Pallatium,

I think you are attributing too high an ideal to the 'religious tolerance' resolution. I don't think it's meant to mean respect for all religious practices, even if they offend the concept of human rights; it's more an appeal to end oppression of a group on the basis of religion, which would be the case in a country which banned the worship of, say, Hinduism, or targetted these people for arrest, torture, etc.


The UN is the one doing the blanket oppression - on the basis that if you make a law that you KNOW will overtly affect one group of people more than another, you are making a discriminatory law.


On the other hand, that isn't to say that the UN should respect every single aspect of religious practice, if those practices are clearly contrary to natural law and justice.


And hence the reason for this repeal comes clear - if the UN is happy to define "natural law and justice" in defience of everyone who thinks that laws eminate from morals and religion, it should stop pretending to respect religion in anyway and just admit it is trying to create an entirely secular body.

And secondly - I disagree. We are saying that "we will tolerate your religion, as long as nothing you want your followers to do annoys us, then we will overule your religion and make you accept our defintion what is right and wrong whatever your goddesses might think"

That's not exactly tolerance.
Actually, that's not at all what it says. It says that governments aren't allowed to use certain religious beliefs to overrule what the UN sees as fundamental right. There's nothing any of those resolutions making anyone accept any religious viewpoint, except in the effects of government...which brings us to your first point:

Firstly - what about Theocratic nations, where the government is the religion?
That's the effect of these religions, to seperate certain religious beliefs (against homosexuality, against abortion, etc,) from government. Religious governments have long had disagreements about this. Lamme quote from the Religious tolerance resolution you seem to be misunderstanding:

(1)Whereas, Freedom of Religion does not exist in all countries in the world.

(2)Whereas, Too many wars are started and fought because of religious differences.

(3)Whereas, There is a need for more religious tolerance on Earth.

(4)Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion.

(5)Be it further resolved that the United Nations oppose all wars fought in the name of God and religion.4 resolves that the UN is to "promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion." a) this no where mandates that UN proposers be tolerant of religion, but that the UN promote those that are (you, as a possible UN poposer are still free to be intolerant of others' religions and in compliance with this resolution--though you're disepecting its message), and b) It is aimed at the UN, but also (and probably moreso) national governments and individual citizens--that the UN is interested in promoting individuals to be more tolerant.

Number 5, indictes those religious governments that go to war. If it were contrary to the resolution to indicte religious governments from pursuing certain actions (say that are seen as immoral by the UN), why would the resolution itself do just that?

How is the UN promoting a greater tolerance of religious differences when with every resolution passed it is saying "We understand that religions believe different things, and here is a resolution that says we tolerate your view point except, since we don't agree with it, we are going to make you accept a law that totally contradicts it"

The UN promotes (from what I can see) a government entirely seperate from religion. It does not set about promoting any kind of tolerance for religious differences, as every resolution (previously mentioned) basically overrides all religions and makes their believers act in the same way.

How is the UN promoting a greater tolerance of religious differences...
The UN is promoting religious differences in the sense of, "See those people over there? Don't kill them because of their religious differences, please".

The UN promotes (from what I can see) a government entirely seperate from religion. It does not set about promoting any kind of tolerance for religious differences, as every resolution (previously mentioned) basically overrides all religions and makes their believers act in the same way.
This is partly true. It promotes religion up to the point where it interferes with other human rights. Importantly, the UN isn't prohibiting spirituality, or belief in a supreme being or after-life. What it is doing is placing some restrictions on certain manifestations of those beliefs if they harm others.

How is the UN promoting a greater tolerance of religious differences when with every resolution passed it is saying "We understand that religions believe different things, and here is a resolution that says we tolerate your view point except, since we don't agree with it, we are going to make you accept a law that totally contradicts it"
[emphasis added]

Again, I feel you're grossly oversimplifying things. Who is the "you" you're speaking of (that the resolutions are enforcing secularism upon/disagreeing in religious thought)? National governments? Individual citizens?

If it's individual citizens, then yes, I think those resolutions might be conflict with "Religious Tolerance". It's not very tolerant to "force" others into a certain religious viewpoint. If it's national governments then it isn't really in conflict with "Religious Tolerance". Remember, "Religious Tolerance" itself heavily opposes wars (apparently by national governments) in the name of religion, something a theocracy might see as its right. So it is "Religious Tolerance" itself that establishes the precedent of disallowing theocracies to do things the UN wouldn't allow secular governments to do, or holding theocracy to the same requirements as secular government.

If we actually look at the resolutions you've cited, we see they affect national governments rather than individual citizens (I don't see anything disallowing my citizens from hating gays, or from protesting abortion). So, it is in line wit the precedent of "Religious Tolerance"
The UN promotes (from what I can see) a government entirely separate from religion. It does not set about promoting any kind of tolerance for religious differences, as every resolution (previously mentioned) basically overrides all religions and makes their believers act in the same way.
[emphasis added]

Yup, and that's the precedent of "Religious Tolerance". The fact that religious wars are discouraged implies that influencing governments in secular ways is not in conflict with the message of religious tolerance that "Religious Tolerance" sends. I think it's important that we not be guilty of "title legislating" (which I sometimes have a problem with, too). "Title Legislating" is when, instead of making a thorough, or even semi-thorough study of the text of a proposal, we judge what a proposal does by the title, and by what we think the title implies the proposal does. Here, I think you've ignored the actual text of the proposal (which seems to allow for the UN to disagree and "correct" religious governments), and have instead substituted it with an imaginary text of what you figure is included is 'religious tolerance'.

I disagree: to monumentally derail this thread for a moment, you have to read the OT pretty selectively to understand that witches should be killed. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" isn't commonly interpreted as being a justification for killing witches.


I've read [somewhere or other] that that passage involves a translation error anyway, and that the original reference was to poisoners rather than witches...