NationStates Jolt Archive

Remove Religious References Act

Category: Furtherment of Democracy

Strength: Strong

This resolution seeks to finally confirm the status of religion within the United Nations, both recognising it as a fundamental right of any human being to follow any religion they choose, whilst also allowing Individual Nations to have full control over the proximity between church and state.

RECOGNISES that citizens of all member nations are entitled to complete Freedom of Religion and that many member nations have large portions of their society that require religion of some form.

ACKNOWLEDGES that the many different members of the United Nations contain an even greater number of different religious practices including nations that base no part of their laws or society on any form of ‘religious traditions’.

DECLARES that United Resolutions should aim to raise the level of debate by removing Religious references so as to not offend member nations who do not base any part of their society on ancient arguments.

Examples of religious references that should not be contained in resolutions to ensure Religious Impartiality:

a) references to specific religions.

b) references to specific religions being entitled to any form of discriminatory treatment.

c) the use of religious terminology, e.g. Christian name, marriage, creationism

RECOMMENDS that all future proposals be held to these standards on terminology to ensure they do not cause offence and allow a more intellectual debate.

NOTES that previous resolutions have already been passed containing offensive religious references. This resolution does not directly seek a repeal of any existing resolution although it does;

SEEK to raise the issue of ‘Religious Impartiality’ in U.N. Resolutions.

PROTECT the rights of nations whose populations are not religious.

PROTECT the above nations from enforcing laws in their countries containing offensive religious terminology or traditions.

EXPRESSES it’s hope that by following these guidelines the United Nations will be able to operate free of ‘religious conflict’ and pursue a more intelligent democratic system.

REAFFIRMS that those who wish to follow a religion have complete religious freedom and no member nation can discriminate amongst its population according to religious beliefs.



-
-
-

There has been some support for this proposal but also some concern, including someone who said it would be rejected as illegal, does it conform now?

We don't regard it as wise to prohibit legislators from using particular terms. You cannot predict all possible uses of religious terms, so placing a blanket ban is unreasonable and may end up blocking a perfectly acceptable piece of legislation.

Additionally, there will be little consensus on what constitutes "religious terminology". For instance, you regard "marriage" as religious, while the governments of _Myopia_ and many other UN nations would strongly disagree.

_Myopia_ has a strong secular tradition, and organised religion is a much less powerful presence than in many other nations. But we are mature enough not to get upset by mere references to religion. Actual legislative actions leading to establishment of religion, or discrimination, we will fight against - but banning words and phrases is impractical and petty.

We don't regard it as wise to prohibit legislators from using particular terms. You cannot predict all possible uses of religious terms, so placing a blanket ban is unreasonable and may end up blocking a perfectly acceptable piece of legislation.

This resolution does not attempt to enforce a ban, more respectfully requests that people try and remain impartial and that grossly offensive religious references be amended.

Additionally, there will be little consensus on what constitutes "religious terminology". For instance, you regard "marriage" as religious, while the governments of _Myopia_ and many other UN nations would strongly disagree.

I am not sure how you manage that, only the church can grant a 'marriage', the word is often mis-used these days and therefore to move away from the religious connotation surely you would agree that "civil unions" are preferable from an impartiality standpoint?

_Myopia_ has a strong secular tradition, and organised religion is a much less powerful presence than in many other nations. But we are mature enough not to get upset by mere references to religion. Actual legislative actions leading to establishment of religion, or discrimination, we will fight against - but banning words and phrases is impractical and petty.

It is not a question of maturity, The Kingdom of Arrogant Genii has an extremely educated populace and therefore has almost eliminated the need for religion. We simply do not want to be forced into using religious references when there is no compelling case for them to be included.

If people were including homophobic comments it would not be tolerated but for people who feel that religion insults their intelligence, these terms are just as offensive.

The UN has already determined that the word 'marriage' need not have a religious connotation (resolution: 'Definition of Marriage'). This resolution was passed as a sop to those who were perturbed by references to gay marriage in prior resolutions; the definition for UN purposes was intended to 'secularise'* the terminology.

I'm inclined to agree with my myopic friend, I'm afraid, though I sympathise with your intentions.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN


*ook: brain isn't working - what's the word I'm looking for?

The UN has already determined that the word 'marriage' need not have a religious connotation (resolution: 'Definition of Marriage'). This resolution was passed as a sop to those who were perturbed by references to gay marriage in prior resolutions; the definition for UN purposes was intended to 'secularise'* the terminology.

I'm inclined to agree with my myopic friend, I'm afraid, though I sympathise with your intentions.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN


*ook: brain isn't working - what's the word I'm looking for?

I can see what you are saying but the terminology used in some resolutions is hard for my nation to adopt as we do not recognise religion any more so than fanclubs of a particular movie.

Everyone seems to agree that religious references shouldn't form part of a resolution yet when a chance is presented to do something about it it is criticised.

I suspect that this has more to do with 'gay marriage' to some people, who will protect it at all costs even though it shouldn't apply.

This resolution does not attempt to enforce a ban, more respectfully requests that people try and remain impartial and that grossly offensive religious references be amended.

Ok - is this trying to discourage or prevent religious references:

Examples of religious references that should not be contained in resolutions to ensure Religious Impartiality:

a) references to specific religions.

b) references to specific religions being entitled to any form of discriminatory treatment.

c) the use of religious terminology, e.g. Christian name, marriage, creationism

If you're trying to merely discourage, it's a waste of time. Nobody will pay any attention, except those who mis-read it as a ban - and deception, even if accidental, is not a very honourable way of achieving your goals.

If you're actually trying to stop these references getting into resolutions, then my arguments above apply, and I think it's a bad idea.

I am not sure how you manage that, only the church can grant a 'marriage', the word is often mis-used these days and therefore to move away from the religious connotation surely you would agree that "civil unions" are preferable from an impartiality standpoint?

That's complete rubbish. In _Myopia_, as in many nations (OOC: including real english-speaking nations, such as the UK), marriages can be completely secular. You can walk into a government registry office, sign a marriage contract, and never see the inside of a place of worship. Of course, you can also walk into a place of worship, and include the signing of a legal marriage contract in a religious marriage ceremony. Or you can go to a place of worship, have your partnership blessed by the priest/rabbi/whoever in a traditional religious marriage ceremony, but not sign the marriage contract - in which case you're free to act as if you're married, even call yourselves married (free speech), but the government will not recognise the marriage, and you won't qualify for the rights afforded to married couples.

Religions don't get to claim ownership of words. We will not have distinctly less romantic sounding "civil unions" foisted upon us, while religious people claim "marriage" (with all its stronger connotations) for themselves, as if to label the love of partners not accepted by organised religions as somehow less worthy, less meaningful.

It is not a question of maturity, The Kingdom of Arrogant Genii has an extremely educated populace and therefore has almost eliminated the need for religion. We simply do not want to be forced into using religious references when there is no compelling case for them to be included.

Nobody's forcing you to use the words. Some of the rest of us, however, want to discuss and legislate topics where it may be necessary to refer to religions and religious practices.

For instance, if "marriage" can be regarded as a religious reference, surely so can "human sacrifice" and other rituals associated with certain religions. You're effectively saying we shouldn't legislate on human sacrifice and other rituals (either to protect, encourage, discourage or ban them), because you don't like it when people talk about religion.

If people were including homophobic comments it would not be tolerated but for people who feel that religion insults their intelligence, these terms are just as offensive.

If anyone was directly attacking you or condemning you to hell as a non-believer, then I'd have some sympathy. But if you insist on taking offence merely because people use words that you associate with something you personally don't believe in, you're just going to have to put up with it.

In fact, despite having no affiliation whatsoever to any organised religion, I'd regard your comments, which imply that all those with different theological views to yourself are stupid, as far more offensive.

Everyone seems to agree that religious references shouldn't form part of a resolution yet when a chance is presented to do something about it it is criticised.

No. Most of us agree that the actual actions and arguments in resolutions shouldn't be derived directly from religious doctrines. That doesn't mean that we agree that actual references to religion and religious practices should be kept out of legislation.

No. Most of us agree that the actual actions and arguments in resolutions shouldn't be derived directly from religious doctrines. That doesn't mean that we agree that actual references to religion and religious practices should be kept out of legislation.

It appears that I will have to concede defeat and that legislation will continue to be contaminated by backwards-thinking religious rhetoric.

This is certainly not a step forward for the United Nations.

It appears that I will have to concede defeat and that legislation will continue to be contaminated by backwards-thinking religious rhetoric.

This is certainly not a step forward for the United Nations.

Or, as the ancient Wenaist saying runs, "Our feet dare not to tread, the grass 'fore our eyes."