NationStates Jolt Archive

Religious Tolerance is a senseless bill that eliminates national sovereignty and Governmental freedoms. I urge ALL delegates to approve the proposal, even if you do not agree with it personally. It deserves an up or down vote by all U.N. members. To not allow this would undermine this institution.

Please post the text of the repeal so that people may decide its merits (or lack thereof) directly.

Repeal "Religious Tolerance"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #19


Proposed by: Darwinianstan

Description: UN Resolution #19: Religious Tolerance (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: This ammendment prevents national sovereignty by forcing leaders to "accept" peoples different religions in the name of so called "human rights."

OUTRAGED by this(above statement), a Government has the right to make sure their people do not worship any God or practice any religion.

PROPOSING that all Governments be allowed to prevent any and all religious practice and worship. Also Governments have the right to deal with citizens who disobey in any way the Government sees fit.

Approvals: 5 (Knives and Forks, Allied Iraq, NewTexas, Leg-ends, Civil-economic Liberty)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 118 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Jan 14 2006

Nope.

1. I believe this tries to introduce no legislation, so is illegal.
2. I don't see why governments should be allowed to oppress their people with regards to religion.

This doesnt introduce new legislation. It just says nations need not be tolerant which allows for oppression. Who's to say what another country can or cant to in terms of religious oppression. This hurts national sovereignty. As I have said before, it deserves an up or down vote.

God, two repeals in a row that use NatSov as a crutch

Repeal "Religious Tolerance"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #19


Proposed by: Darwinianstan

Description: UN Resolution #19: Religious Tolerance (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

I do believe it needs to be repealed, but for being a crappy poem rather than a resolution

Argument: This ammendment prevents national sovereignty by forcing leaders to "accept" peoples different religions in the name of so called "human rights."

"This ammendment" sounds like you're speaking about this repeal as if it were an ammendment. That resolution you're repealing, it's a RESOLUTION, not an ammendment. Besides, what's wrong with accepting those religions

(Also, if you actually read it, it doesn't force you to do shit squat)

OUTRAGED by this(above statement), a Government has the right to make sure their people do not worship any God or practice any religion.

Why? Because the newest common religion on the block (Aetheism - not that I'm saying the concept is new, just that it's widespread acceptance is) is better than any religion out there? We're fighting the same religious wars in the name of abolishion of religion. Dear god, we're actually taking massive steps backward

PROPOSING that all Governments be allowed to prevent any and all religious practice and worship. Also Governments have the right to deal with citizens who disobey in any way the Government sees fit.

You can't propose new legislation in a repeal.

Approvals: 5 (Knives and Forks, Allied Iraq, NewTexas, Leg-ends, Civil-economic Liberty)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 118 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Jan 14 2006

Much sooner - I'd say when the mods find it.

This doesnt introduce new legislation. It just says nations need not be tolerant which allows for oppression. Who's to say what another country can or cant to in terms of religious oppression. This hurts national sovereignty. As I have said before, it deserves an up or down vote.

If you said "BELIEVING" instead of "PROPOSING", you'd be correct. However, you chose proposing so it does propose new legislation.

What new legislation is being proposed?

What new legislation is being proposed?Off hand, I'd say the stuff after the word "PROPOSING"...

the stuff I propose is just a repeal of things in the orginial ammendent, theres nothing new in it.

Notice the words "NationStates Moderator Team" and the lovely avatar pictures next to my name and The Most Glorious Hack? That means that his opinion has the weight of Game Modishness behind it. As does mine, to agree with his decision. It's illegal.

Repeals can only do one thing - repeal. When you use the word PROPOSES as the last statement in your repeal, it's new law ... even if it's just stating what went before.

if its illegal, remove it

Dear esteemed delegates:

In the past, The Nomadic Sea-Faring Peoples of Hou Mian have had their share of sectarian strife. We are, for the most part, animistic, and each tribe has their own particular guardian spirits. In the far distant past, our tribes warred with each other, supposedly on the commands of these guardian spirits.

Fortunately for Hou Mian, we are not a warrior people. We managed to survive. However, in a world with thermonuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction, our nation could easily be pulverized by another nation.

Thus, it is radically important that we help our people to understand and respect each other. While there are many reasons for war, none so lead to a lack of empathy as religious war.

This is not to say there is never a reason to ban a particular religious group or that we should not imprison zealots. However, that is to be done on a case by case basis.

Does this resolution need repealing? Possibly. It is vague and does little. However, replacing it with a badly spelled resolution that just prattles about "NatSov" does us no good.

I see that my time is up. Thank you, and spirits bless you all.
Fu Huangdi,
Khaghan of Hou Mian,
Chief of Fubai Tribe

This Resolution (and it is a "resolution" not an "ammendment"[sic] or even an "amendment") to Repeal Religious Tolerance is clearly illegal because it attempts to make new law in addition to repealing the existing Resolution. By "PROPOSING that all Governments be allowed to prevent any and all religious practice and worship" this repeal attempts to explicitly protect the rights of a nation to persecute people on the basis of religion. Assuming it is not deleted by the mods, the Federation of Questionable Industries will not be able to support this illegal (not to mention distasteful) Repeal.

OK, fine its illegal. So Im asking someone to please remove it.

To have a proposal removed, file a request on the Getting Help Page.

where is that?

PROPOSING that all Governments be allowed to prevent any and all religious practice and worship. Also Governments have the right to deal with citizens who disobey in any way the Government sees fit.

With all due respect to the Moddish Powers That Be, this doesn't strike me as new legislation, but rather a statement of the effect that repealing the resolution would have (even if only tacitly).

With all due respect to the Moddish Powers That Be, this doesn't strike me as new legislation, but rather a statement of the effect that repealing the resolution would have (even if only tacitly).The problem is in the use of "PROPOSING". Had it been "BELIEVING", or "REAFFIRMING" (with appropriate grammatical changes to the rest) it would have been a different story.

Furthermore, the second clause violates the ban on barbaric punishments. Governments do not have the right to mete out any punishment they see fit.

The problem is in the use of "PROPOSING". Had it been "BELIEVING", or "REAFFIRMING" (with appropriate grammatical changes to the rest) it would have been a different story.


Ah, okay, gotcha. While some might say that's nothing but semantics, I agree. Precise wording in proposals is extremely important. Thanks, Hack.

Repeal "Religious Tolerance"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #19


Proposed by: Darwinianstan

Description: UN Resolution #19: Religious Tolerance (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: This ammendment prevents national sovereignty by forcing leaders to "accept" peoples different religions in the name of so called "human rights."

Before we get too carried away, let's just remind ourselves why we legislate on human rights questions. It's because we recognise that injustice exists, across the worlds of Nation States and that it is our solemn duty to do whatever is in our power to ensure that as few people as is possible suffer deprivations of their rightful liberties. Among these is the freedom of expression, which entitles one to proclaim whatever religious belief best suits your conscience, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. This is something so universal I feel a National Sovereignty argument is rather inadequate, as a reason for repealing it.

OUTRAGED by this(above statement), a Government has the right to make sure their people do not worship any God or practice any religion.

Why?

PROPOSING that all Governments be allowed to prevent any and all religious practice and worship. Also Governments have the right to deal with citizens who disobey in any way the Government sees fit.

I wasn't aware that attaching riders to U.N. legislation was legal (if it is, my mistake), but regardless, this is a ridiculous claim that would only lead to the imposition of brutal totalitarian restrictions of peoples essential rights to their beliefs, demeaning us all by permitting repression where we could prevent it.

For these reasons, we oppose the repeal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/bowel.jpg