NationStates Jolt Archive

Separation of Religion and Public School Act

Category: Freedom of Ideas
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Southeast Antarctica

Subject: Public Schools(High school, Secondary School level. About age 10-18)

Reason: The next generation should have the opportunity to learn to think for themselfs rather than let religion, whichever it is, think for them

The Act
Religion courses cannot be a course required to graduate.
Teachers are not allowed to bring up any talk of religion in science classes under any circumstance. But is allowed a brief aknowledgement of other opinions if confronted by a student.
School must preach the theory that no one religion is superior than another.

I see one or two problems with this.

Teachers, I feel, should be allowed to bring up talk of religion, as long as they do not specifically endorse said opinion as an 'official' one. It would be against freedom of speech to not let a teacher claim whatever religion he wished to believe.

Religious clothing being unallowed in school is also against freedom of expression, and therefore I would be against this clause.

If schools are to not discuss religion or have courses on it, how would they be able to state that one religion is not 'better' than another? What about people who might believe in a religion that says it is ok to look down upon people based off their skin color? Or heritage? Certainly these religions are not 'better' than tolerant ones.

Teacher are PAID to WORK in schools. And I specified "in science classes".
I never was really into the religious clothing and that was gone in the first draft.
I said religious classes shouldn't be required to graduate. It can be tought.

Category: Freedom of Ideas

That's not an option. Plus, this isn't freeing ideas, it's illegalizing their teaching.

Religion courses cannot be a course required to graduate.
How about graduating with a degree in theology? You need to clarify that. Also, I don't see why courses on religion shouldn't be required to graduate. There's nothing about teaching about religion that says the teachers are imposing religious views on the students.

Teachers are not allowed to bring up any talk of religion in science classes under any circumstance. But is allowed a brief aknowledgement of other opinions if confronted by a student.

Umm...the debate about evolution vs. creation is a very important part of scientific debate, which is an important part of

Umm...the debate about evolution vs. creation is a very important part of scientific debate, which is an important part of
the school should teach the scientific part. Churches can teach the theological part. What if both teaches the theological idea of creationism? Kids won't have 2 choices to choose from, rather they'll have only 1 explanation.

as to your theology idea. I was targeting high school level. Fixed. Thanks:)

Teacher are PAID to WORK in schools. And I specified "in science classes".
I never was really into the religious clothing and that was gone in the first draft.
I said religious classes shouldn't be required to graduate. It can be tought.

Fine with the first two. But if teachers are paid to work, then can't we assume that the people will get rid of teachers if they're not working?

There are many influences that religion has had on the world, including history, economics, etc etc.

I think this just needs to be worded better, so that the mention of religion isn't as an 'official' stance from a school, and only a personal opinion.

You could also outlaw proselityzing (sp) for teachers during school hours.

I think this just needs to be worded better, so that the mention of religion isn't as an 'official' stance from a school, and only a personal opinion.
Well, if a biology teacher talk for 2 straight classes about creation...but it's his opinion.

If you are willing to try to reword it. I'd be willing to listen.:p

Separation of Religion and Public School Act

Category: Freedom of Ideas
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Southeast Antarctica

Subject: Public Schools(High school, Secondary School level. About age 10-18)

Reason: The next generation should have the opportunity to learn to think for themselfs rather than let religion, whichever it is, think for them

The Act
Religion courses cannot be required to graduate, excepting those where they are taught as a philosophy, in recognition of the effects they have in the world or in conjunction with other religions. In no way will the religion(s) being taught be considered more truthful than any other religions, excepting where said religion agrees with current scientific knowledge.

No religion shall be endorsed as an 'official' stance by any schoolboard, as said endorsement might lead to discrimination against those who believed otherwise.




Southeast,

Please see above for my ideas. Not written very well, but it's a start.

Religion courses cannot be required to graduate, excepting those where they are taught as a philosophy, in recognition of the effects they have in the world or in conjunction with other religions. In no way will the religion(s) being taught be considered more truthful than any other religions, excepting where said religion agrees with current scientific knowledge.


1. Imagine a US high school where Christianity is a required course for graduation
2. Imagine an Arab country high school where they constently teaches the Koran and it is required to graduate.

No religion shall be endorsed as an 'official' stance by any schoolboard, as said endorsement might lead to discrimination against those who believed otherwise.


agree with this though.

the school should teach the scientific part. Churches can teach the theological part. What if both teaches the theological idea of creationism? Kids won't have 2 choices to choose from, rather they'll have only 1 explanation.
No. You refuse to understand that a subject can be taught about without endorsing it. A school is the best place to provide a balanced understanding of both sides of the debate.

In Grand Maritoll, the State Religion is taught to every child throughout their schooling, and immigrants are required to take classes regarding it before they are granted Citizen status.

The teaching of the State Religion promotes unity throughout the country (there are no religious conflicts here) and it teaches the Citizens of Grand Maritoll to treat one another with the greatest respect possible, and most importantly, to honor his Lordship Kinjion as Supreme and Unquestionable Ruler of Grand Maritoll (may he rule over Grand Maritoll eternally and the whole world eventually, as we are fond of saying).

Some have questioned how our Grand Religious Unification is in compliance with UN Resolution #19, Religious Tolerance. The answer is simple: not only do we comply with Resolution #19, we fulfill it, by declaring classes that give a comprehensive study of all the major religions of the world mandatory. In these studies, to make the practices of foriegn religions more easy to understand, we show how the foriegn belief systems compare with the ways of Grand Maritoll. After the students have been shown that Grand Maritoll's pro-government religious ways are truly the most efficient and glorious of all religions, the students are cautioned not to look down on other religions, even though they are inferior. To ensure that not one word is spoken against the other religions of the world, the mentioning of foriegn religions, in any way, shape, or form, outside of the World Religions classroom is expressly forbidden, and punishable as Heresy.

By using this system, we have ensured that our citizens have a vast knowledge of foriegn religions, and that they never display any intolerance towards said religions. Please do not take our glorious system away from us with a ban on teaching religion in the classroom.


Jacob Spatz,
President Perpetua

This message is endorsed by His Lordship Kinjion. May he reign over Grand Maritoll eternally and the whole world eventually.

:p great story

To ensure that not one word is spoken against the other religions of the world, the mentioning of foriegn religions, in any way, shape, or form, outside of the World Religions classroom is expressly forbidden, and punishable as Heresy.

By using this system, we have ensured that our citizens have a vast knowledge of foriegn religions, and that they never display any intolerance towards said religions.

I'm sure this is against freedom of speech.:p

Religion courses cannot be a course required to graduate.
Teachers are not allowed to bring up any talk of religion in science classes under any circumstance. But is allowed a brief aknowledgement of other opinions if confronted by a student.
School must preach the theory that no one religion is superior than another.

This entire proposal violates national sovereignty. Essentially this is a perfect example of the UN taking over the way our nations decide to educate our citizens.

This entire proposal violates national sovereignty. Essentially this is a perfect example of the UN taking over the way our nations decide to educate our citizens.
hereby withdrawing my proposal:)

Mikitivity has strange mind-control powers! :eek:

:p great story

OOC: Thanks ;) You're going to love the defense argument :D

I'm sure this is against freedom of speech.:p

If I may first attract your attention to The Universal Bill of Rights, Resolution #26

It does seem that the religious peacekeeping practices of Grand Maritoll are in violation of Articles 1, 2, 5 (possibly 3, depending on how you interpret it), however, the truth lies in article 10, which specifically states:

The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members.

Since our existing Bill of Rights specifically mentions the irrevocable Right of the Government to protect religions and those who follow them from religious oppression by preventing any potential religious conflicts (conflicts which often arise simply from the mentioning of religion, quite often), the Government has, maintains, and often uses the right of Enforced Silence.


Now, let us discuss Universal Freedom of Choice, Resolution #53, with a special focus on the mandatory State Religion of Grand Maritoll.

Urges all members of the United Nations to recognise that a populace granted the freedom to make choices in life is a happier, more content and more productive society;

The Republic of Grand Maritoll has indeed seen that choices are an important part of everyday life, and because of this, I personally vetoed the Bill that would have effected the removal of free will from the people of Grand Maritoll.

Strongly encourages leaders to imagine how different the world could be, if from an early age, people were free to exercise genuine choice in what they read, watched and learnt;

Kinjion imagines all. It is precisely because of his horrific vision of such a world that he has implemented the essential barriers on dangerous choice that we know and love in Grand Maritoll.

Recognises that the most basic human characteristic is that of curiosity - the ability to wonder, ask questions, and seek answers, and affirms its belief that no State should limit its people's freedom to do this;

We do not limit the freedom of the people of Grand Maritoll to ask questions. Every citizen of Grand Maritoll is free to ask questions to his or her hearts' content! We have set no limit on the number of questions a person may ask, indeed, if a citizen wishes, he can ask questions constantly. The only restriction we have placed is a restriction on what particular questions may be asked. Some examples from the "approved" list include:

"How may I better serve Kinjion (may he reign over Grand Maritoll eternally and the rest of the world eventually) and the Government of Grand Maritoll?"

"What do you want for dinner today, dear?"

"Do you feel ill?"

"Are you coming to the Pro-Government Rally?

of course, knowing that inflection can change the whole meaning of a question, that is strictly monitored as well.

Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations:

*Emphasis added

The governments' monitoring of the questions asked, and the Governments' ban on the Mention of Foreign Religions, are both intended to promote unity in Grand Maritoll. Surely no cause is more reasonable than peaceful, harmonious unity?


Onward, to Resolution #115, Freedom of Conscience.

DEFINE a ‘prisoner of conscience’ as a person who is detained or imprisoned, not for use of, nor encouragement to use, violence; not for openly supporting nor recommending hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons to provoke people to discriminate, or to be hostile or violent; but for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, gender, sexuality, colour or similarly unjustifiable reasons; and accordingly

INSIST that all member states immediately and unconditionally release any prisoners of conscience they are currently detaining and

PROHIBIT member states from detaining prisoners of conscience in the future.

Surely words and actions against reasonable Government laws such as the Mention of Foreign Religions Act qualify as openly supporting hatred for religious groups, as the MoFRA is designed to eliminate such hatred? If you are against the removal of hatred from society, are you not for the existence of that hatred in society?


Finally, let us discuss the Freedom of Press.

Surely you expect your newscasters, and the newscasters of foreign nations, to follow your laws when reporting the news in your country, correct? We certainly expect ours to, and punish all newscasters who break the law by speaking against the Religion just as we would punish a civilian who does likewise.

And speaking against the Government in Grand Maritoll is synonymous with speaking against the religion of Grand Maritoll, for they are wonderfully intertwined.



-Addendum-

The Government of the Republic of Grand Maritoll, and the people of Grand Maritoll, thank the members of the Government of Southeast Antarctica for coming to their senses and withdrawing the proposal.


Jacob Spatz,
President Perpetua

This message is endorsed by His Lordship Kinjion. May he reign over Grand Maritoll eternally and the whole world eventually.

hereby withdrawing my proposal:)

You can start it up again, but if you make it optional, you can argue that it only *suggests* certain ways of educating citizens (then you'd have to reduce the strength / classification of the resolution.

the school should teach the scientific part. Churches can teach the theological part. What if both teaches the theological idea of creationism? Kids won't have 2 choices to choose from, rather they'll have only 1 explanation.


Then what if in a Theocracy; where church and state are one thus they set up the schools and teach from a set religious base. This would end such and place restrictions on a type of government and in a way end it teaching it's foundation in a religion; thus I believe this would be ilegal under such as it effects a form of government protected as such that has every right other governments do to eductate it's citizens in it's form of government and the forming beliefs that estatblished that form of government.

You can start it up again, but if you make it optional, you can argue that it only *suggests* certain ways of educating citizens (then you'd have to reduce the strength / classification of the resolution.
"suggest" doesn't do much good:(

Then what if in a Theocracy church and state are one thus they set up the schools and teach a religious base. This would end such and place restrictions on a type of government and in a way end it teaching it's foundation in a religion thus I belive this would be ilegal under such as it effects a form of government protected as such.

This is precisely the plight of Grand Maritoll with regards to the proposed resolution (which is being withdrawn, so there is no cause for alarm).


Jacob Spatz,
President Perpetua

This message is endorsed by His Lordship Kinjion. May he reign over Grand Maritoll eternally and the whole world eventually.

"Recognises that the most basic human characteristic is that of curiosity - the ability to wonder, ask questions, and seek answers, and affirms its belief that no State should limit its people's freedom to do this(ask question);"


We do not limit the freedom of the people of Grand Maritoll to ask questions. Every citizen of Grand Maritoll is free to ask questions to his or her hearts' content! We have set no limit on the number of questions a person may ask, indeed, if a citizen wishes, he can ask questions constantly. The only restriction we have placed is a restriction on what particular questions may be asked. Some examples from the "approved" list include:
[/SIZE]

The red part and the blue part directly contradict.:p

You DO limit the freedom by not permitting the FREEDOM of asking religious questions.

I'm no lawyer but I can read:p

by the way, I'll propose a global denuclearation proposal next.

by the way, I'll propose a global denuclearation proposal next.

Oh, boy...can't wait...

The red part and the blue part directly contradict.:p

You DO limit the freedom by not permitting the FREEDOM of asking religious questions.

I'm no lawyer but I can read:p

We do not limit their freedom to ask questions, we limit their freedom to choose which questions they ask, which is not forbidden by any current resolution (provided it is done to prevent religious discrimination, which it is). :)


Jacob Spatz,
President Perpetua

This message is endorsed by His Lordship Kinjion. May he reign over Grand Maritoll eternally and the whole world eventually.

Oh, boy...can't wait...
boy, if it's any other country I would have said "I was kidding"


Now I'm considering it:rolleyes:

"suggest" doesn't do much good:(

Sure they do.

Let's say a UN resolution were to suggest nations set up needle exchange programs (one already did -- Needle Sharing Prevention) but it didn't force the programs, just suggested them (thus making it a mild Social Justice resolution).

The benefits of nations choosing to exchange needles en masse, can be said that nations can begin to develop international health standards ... so the nations that don't, become less clean / safe / etc, and thus less attractive for tourism (which for many UN members is an important part of our economies). The sovereign choice is always there, but when all nations move in a similar direction at the same time, we improve our relations and also allow experiences in one nation to better fit in another. For example, it might be that doctors and nurses in Mikitivity can now give good advice to Protestant and Agnostic nations on effective ways to actually implement needle exchange programs (which will reduce HIV in my government and hopefully others).

Social Justice and Human Rights categories are probably the two examples that are often the least friendly to "sovereignty" based arguments, but the strength in implementing them really comes from sharing ways to implement progressive civil rights or social justice programs. When nations opt out, the other nations benefit a bit less, but the nations that opt out, also risk alienating their governments a bit.

OOC (Out of Character): In the real world, UN resolutions *always* recommend. In NationStates and real life, nations can leave the UN. If you pass too many objectional resolutions, nations tend to leave or stop paying the UN. So in NationStates, a "mild" resolution is basically a political way to say, "Look this is important to my nation, but how about we water this down some, because it isn't *as* important to you." There are some cases, where the language in a resolution is pretty rough on "sovereign" rights ... and most players use the "Strong" proposal strength classification in those cases.

My advice is to always try to seek a mild ground ... make a weak resolution with a few loopholes, because if somebody says, "Hey you are telling me what to do", you would be correct to say, "No, I'm just suggesting we try my idea for a bit, but I won't force you, if you don't force me."

My personal theory on a good resolution:

1) It identifies an international issues / probrlem. If its author can't say why they think it is an international issue, it is probably in need of more debate / discussion ... tons of it.

2) It treats all UN members as equals. That means that is uses words like RECOMMENDS, CONSIDERS, SUGGESTS, CALLS UPON. If a resolution seems pushy, people will vote against it and get angry ... that is not the reason my "nation" joined the UN, and I think many of us can say the same thing. :)

Your basic idea can be revised ... just try to explain why you think this is an international issue (and many players feel basic human rights transcend boundaries -- they can help you with that justification) and make the resolution sound a bit more optional. There is no rule that says you have to do this ... and some players don't like this at all ... but I'm a moderate and really think the point of this game is to challenge us to think and talk about problems, and that this is easier to do when both sides feel they've contributed something.

2) It treats all UN members as equals. That means that is uses words like RECOMMENDS, CONSIDERS, SUGGESTS, CALLS UPON. If a resolution seems pushy, people will vote against it and get angry ... that is not the reason my "nation" joined the UN, and I think many of us can say the same thing. :)

Your basic idea can be revised ....


Even if this one is revised as long as it does anything to limit, restrict, even ban religion in schools it will be preventing Theocracies from teaching their form of government since State and Church are one thus how can it be treating them equal to any other form of government. As they often reguire citizens to learn about their form of government in their schools. As noted if Church and State in a Theocracy are one; government! How can you consider any restrictions on them that would not be imposed on all other nations around teaching topics which are so closely related to the government formation and base for it's laws. Here you are only doing it in a manner that would greatly effect a Theorcracy.. as it would have to change it's education system around how it teaches about it's government functions and formation. Thus if ALL form of government have to make changes then again the question of being equal comes up.

by the way, I'll propose a global denuclearation proposal next.


Don't do it unless you repeal a few resolutions on the table first as believe there are a few that would need such before you can even submit one. Also think you need to include a BAN in the IGNORE cannon as it can do more damage than any nuke...

Even if this one is revised as long as it does anything to limit, restrict, even ban religion in schools it will be preventing Theocracies from teaching their form of government since State and Church are one thus how can it be treating them equal to any other form of government.

Erk. I will agree with your point. :)

Also you cannot limit debate to only one side of the scientific community. If you want to meddle there you should try to insist both sides are taught. This has already been done and has failed.

As for banning prostletysing. Define it first. Is it okay if a kid asks a question? What about praying for a kid if they are upset?

This is all total nonsense from a well-meaning, politically correct liberal. The UN should stay out of individual nations education systems except where it must to do guarantee basic right to AN education for both sexes. The curriculum is a matter of the state.

Also you cannot limit debate to only one side of the scientific community. If you want to meddle there you should try to insist both sides are taught. This has already been done and has failed.

As for banning prostletysing. Define it first. Is it okay if a kid asks a question? What about praying for a kid if they are upset?

This is all total nonsense from a well-meaning, politically correct liberal. The UN should stay out of individual nations education systems except where it must to do guarantee basic right to AN education for both sexes. The curriculum is a matter of the state.

But we are ensuring an education for these children, correct? How are we to ensure that this education is of the best quality?

What 'two sides' of science are there? There is usually a consensus opinion on a subject, and then a few other opinions, which can be brought up in class.

What if a said religion goes against what science teaches? Are the children getting a good education if their religion says that a giant frog causes the rain to fall by crying?

Or are we only allowing for an education, and not the quality of said education?

anyone wants to move on with this effort?

Southeast,

The theocracies do have a point. Perhaps a resolution that theocratic teachings do not contravene with science? Even those would be tough though.

Personally,
I think that something like this should fall under NatSov. Thus a nation should be able to have their own rules about this type of thing. This is not something that the United Nations should worry about.

Personally,
I think that something like this should fall under NatSov. Thus a nation should be able to have their own rules about this type of thing. This is not something that the United Nations should worry about.

True..but right now, the 'right to an education' resolution says nothing about what TYPE or the QUALITY of education. Shouldn't this be corrected?

True..but right now, the 'right to an education' resolution says nothing about what TYPE or the QUALITY of education. Shouldn't this be corrected?

You can correct something if it's not wrong.

True..but right now, the 'right to an education' resolution says nothing about what TYPE or the QUALITY of education. Shouldn't this be corrected?

For the same reason we can't dictate religious beliefs. What we teach now is based on our perceptions and what hasn't been proven wrong yet.
OOC: I once dated a girl who was a devout Catholic. She insisted on the letter of the bible being correct. God created the world only several thousand years ago, and that all evidence of life before that time was put there by God to test faith. I never agreed with her, but I'll be damned if I was going to insist that she was wrong. It's not up to me to tell her that Genesis was right or wrong, it was up to her to decide on her own.

However, it may be our duty to allow the government to choose to sanction (but choose to fund or not) seperate school systems that give the parents the right to choose the type of education their child recieves.

Reading my own words, just had a terrible thought. My country is devoutly capitalistic, almost to the point of it being a religion. Could the Nike middle school be what I want for my citizens? Or worse, the Tom Cruise memorial High School of Scientology. Scary.

For the same reason we can't dictate religious beliefs. What we teach now is based on our perceptions and what hasn't been proven wrong yet.
OOC: I once dated a girl who was a devout Catholic. She insisted on the letter of the bible being correct. God created the world only several thousand years ago, and that all evidence of life before that time was put there by God to test faith. I never agreed with her, but I'll be damned if I was going to insist that she was wrong. It's not up to me to tell her that Genesis was right or wrong, it was up to her to decide on her own.

However, it may be our duty to allow the government to choose to sanction (but choose to fund or not) seperate school systems that give the parents the right to choose the type of education their child recieves.

Reading my own words, just had a terrible thought. My country is devoutly capitalistic, almost to the point of it being a religion. Could the Nike middle school be what I want for my citizens? Or worse, the Tom Cruise memorial High School of Scientology. Scary.
we did say eliminate ALL religion, including scientology

we did say eliminate ALL religion, including scientology

OOC: Most atheists treat science as their religion. So, should we ban science as well?

For the same reason we can't dictate religious beliefs. What we teach now is based on our perceptions and what hasn't been proven wrong yet.
OOC: I once dated a girl who was a devout Catholic. She insisted on the letter of the bible being correct. God created the world only several thousand years ago, and that all evidence of life before that time was put there by God to test faith. I never agreed with her, but I'll be damned if I was going to insist that she was wrong. It's not up to me to tell her that Genesis was right or wrong, it was up to her to decide on her own.

However, it may be our duty to allow the government to choose to sanction (but choose to fund or not) seperate school systems that give the parents the right to choose the type of education their child recieves.

Reading my own words, just had a terrible thought. My country is devoutly capitalistic, almost to the point of it being a religion. Could the Nike middle school be what I want for my citizens? Or worse, the Tom Cruise memorial High School of Scientology. Scary.


Sure. But what if the religion goes against something that we can PROVE to be wrong? For instance, what if you girlfriend still thought that the sun revolved around the earth due to her religion?

What if this was part of the school education?

OOC: Most atheists treat science as their religion. So, should we ban science as well?

Grand Maritoll, you're way off here. The only thing that makes an atheist is non-belief in god.

Science isn't a 'religion'.

Sure. But what if the religion goes against something that we can PROVE to be wrong? For instance, what if you girlfriend still thought that the sun revolved around the earth due to her religion?

What if this was part of the school education?

OOC: And what if the religion is provably right? NS does have regions that are set in Narnia and Middle-Earth, after all...

1. Imagine a US high school where Christianity is a required course for graduation
2. Imagine an Arab country high school where they constently teaches the Koran and it is required to graduate.


Imagine a Theocracy where the Church is the government and they set up the schools. This would end their teaching about that which is the foundation of their government, a religion. Imagine the US not being allowed to teach about the Bill of Rights or Constitution because it might be seen as the Ten Commandments.

Since Theocracy are legal governments in NSUN then any restrictions that prevent them from teaching religion and reguiring it as part of gradution courses is like restricting another nation from reguiring it's form of government be taught in schools; and required completion before graduation at a passing level. Thus I believe this one will be illegal as you can't place restrictions on one form of government that others are free to act on. The teaching of religion in school in a Theochracy is required to graduate as it is the base of their government.. this would end that but other nations would be able to teach about their form of government and ideals it's based on without any limits, restrictions, or as this one does bans.

The only solution now to it is to:::
Ban all teaching of anything that a government is based on and then you can call it equal for all. Here it effects Theocracies; where Church and State are one; above any other form of government.

Sure. But what if the religion goes against something that we can PROVE to be wrong? For instance, what if you girlfriend still thought that the sun revolved around the earth due to her religion?

What if this was part of the school education?

You forget this is not real world it's role play so a sun can revolve around a planet or even a planet revolve around a moon. Thus who is right here. Just because your planet rotates around a sun and has a moon rotating around it doesn't mean some other world is the same as yours here in NS. Also what if tommorrow in the real world we find a planet with a sun rotating around it; as there is a lot of space out there and anything is possible in it. Remember in the real world man is not playing golf on a moon yet in NS many nations have major golf couses on their moons.

OOC: And what if the religion is provably right? NS does have regions that are set in Narnia and Middle-Earth, after all...

If the religion is right....then no problem.

You still haven't answered MY question though. What if the religious teaching directly contradicts what we know to be true through scientific teaching? (For instance, a religion teaching that the universe revolves around Earth.)

You forget this is not real world it's role play so a sun can revolve around a planet or even a planet revolve around a moon. Thus who is right here. Just because your planet rotates around a sun and has a moon rotating around it doesn't mean some other world is the same as yours here in NS. Also what if tommorrow in the real world we find a planet with a sun rotating around it; as there is a lot of space out there and anything is possible in it. Remember in the real world man is not playing golf on a moon yet in NS many nations have major golf couses on their moons.

A planet revolving around a sun would be...amazing, to say the least.

But that doesn't defeat the purpose of what I'm saying. What if the religion teaches direct contradiction with what science shows to be the truth on said planet?

What if the only education a religion requires is learning how to praise and read holy scripts?

This is a problem in the 'free education' resolution really, because it's poorly defined.

If the religion is right....then no problem.

You still haven't answered MY question though. What if the religious teaching directly contradicts what we know to be true through scientific teaching? (For instance, a religion teaching that the universe revolves around Earth.)


The NSUN's rules say that resolutions can't be used to ban ideologies or systems of government. Can you explain how imposing such a restriction on all nations' systems of education would be compatible with the continued existence of fundamentalist theocracies? I'm certainly not defending them as a concept, but the rules here do seem clear...

If the religion is right....then no problem.


And if that religion is against something science related then what? Who says which is right a religion or a science. Some will side with either on any issue even in the real world. So how can any one side be given preference over the other? Also how can it be proven either is wrong? Science and religion could be wrong and their could be a third option to the issue that none have found yet.

Take the idea that a planet rotate around a sun. You only know a small portion of what is possible in the real world so how can it not be possible someplace we have yet to find? Remember humans have defined things as we know them and they are not perfect.

Here this proposal would clearly stop a Theocracy from teaching the basic ideals that it's government is founded on right or wrong. Say it was the Ten Commandments that all laws in the Theocracy was based on thus it could not teach them in it's school. While because say a Bill of Rights is not religious another could teach them in school as the base of laws in their national government. Thus this effects mainly the Theocracy and what they can teach about their basic government.

Add to the resolution:

Teachers will under no circumstances be allowed to teach the idea of evolution, seeing how this would infringe on many of the religious rights of students, and would force them to study something contradictory to their beliefs.

IMO, evolution is a religion in itself.

The NSUN's rules say that resolutions can't be used to ban ideologies or systems of government. Can you explain how imposing such a restriction on all nations' systems of education would be compatible with the continued existence of fundamentalist theocracies? I'm certainly not defending them as a concept, but the rules here do seem clear...

St. Edmund,

You have a very good point, which is what I mentioned a few posts back. Which is why I'm looking for a better way to make sure that the education of children is a good one, and not affected by religion or any other number of factors.

And if that religion is against something science related then what? Who says which is right a religion or a science. Some will side with either on any issue even in the real world. So how can any one side be given preference over the other? Also how can it be proven either is wrong? Science and religion could be wrong and their could be a third option to the issue that none have found yet.

Take the idea that a planet rotate around a sun. You only know a small portion of what is possible in the real world so how can it not be possible someplace we have yet to find? Remember humans have defined things as we know them and they are not perfect.

Here this proposal would clearly stop a Theocracy from teaching the basic ideals that it's government is founded on right or wrong. Say it was the Ten Commandments that all laws in the Theocracy was based on thus it could not teach them in it's school. While because say a Bill of Rights is not religious another could teach them in school as the base of laws in their national government. Thus this effects mainly the Theocracy and what they can teach about their basic government.

Cmon now, let's be realistic. Does the sun revolve around the Earth, or is it the other way around? One can say what they want, but it should be TAUGHT in school that the sun does NOT revolve around the Earth. If we give children false views of the world due to religion or any other reason (false teaching), we are not giving them a good education.

You are right that this resolution as currently stands would affect theocracies too greatly, and so I have backed off my earlier view of not interspersing religion with education.

However, I do not feel that the education a child receives should be counter to what science has provided an abundance of evidence for. (For example, if a religion said that rain is actually the tears of giant buffalos that live in the sky. This is obviously false.)

Add to the resolution:

Teachers will under no circumstances be allowed to teach the idea of evolution, seeing how this would infringe on many of the religious rights of students, and would force them to study something contradictory to their beliefs.

IMO, evolution is a religion in itself.

If you think evolution is a religion then you either do not know what a religion is commonly defined as to be, or you do not understand what evolution is.

Also, teaching something that infringes upon a person's religion is not against the law, just as it is not illegal to teach something that may infringe upon someone's morality or feelings.

Add to the resolution:

Teachers will under no circumstances be allowed to teach the idea of evolution, seeing how this would infringe on many of the religious rights of students, and would force them to study something contradictory to their beliefs.

IMO, evolution is a religion in itself.

IMO, you're wrong.

Anyway, there's currently a Resolution in force guaranteeing the right to teach evolution which would have to be repealed first. (Whether it's actually a legal resolution, bearing in mind its effect on Theocracies, might be arguable: However the Mods haven't yet said that they consider it to be so...)

This is an issue of the internal sovereignty of nations. Asking a theocratic government for example to separate church and state would be an impossibility. It would also be an extreme violation of their right to practice their religion. Some theocracies deny large portions of science. They don't teach it at all. You could possibly be asking to make a nation teach something completely against their values in the classroom. Just like a fascist country does not teach about democratic values, a theocracy may not teach certain aspects of science like evolution.

Common,

But where is the line drawn? Certainly an education which does not teach facts, or only teaches the minimum and uses theocracy to possibly teach what goes against 'concrete' evidence, is probably not a very good education.

Cmon now, let's be realistic. Does the sun revolve around the Earth, or is it the other way around? One can say what they want, but it should be TAUGHT in school that the sun does NOT revolve around the Earth. If we give children false views of the world due to religion or any other reason (false teaching), we are not giving them a good education.

You are right that this resolution as currently stands would affect theocracies too greatly, and so I have backed off my earlier view of not interspersing religion with education.

However, I do not feel that the education a child receives should be counter to what science has provided an abundance of evidence for. (For example, if a religion said that rain is actually the tears of giant buffalos that live in the sky. This is obviously false.)

I believe we all feel that the TRUTH should be taught and until we know that how can we say which is correct. Thus we must to be fair present both sides of an issue on equal terms and hope the child is smart enough to come to his own views of what is right and wrong. As we can force feed them an idea and still they go wrong. Be it a religious or social belief they have a choice to make and will do that.

You believe that the earth rotates around the planet because it's the only planet and sun system that you know of and have come into contact with. Space in either RW or NS is vast and there are many possible things going on out there we have yet to learn about. Once it was wrong to say anything about the world being more than flat but in time that was proven wrong. Also now they are just starting to figure in planets around other stars so who knows what will be found in the future.

We must not restrict something like what a person reads just make sure they understand what they read and can decide if it fact or fiction. If a person can't read at all then it doen't matter what is there to read. They will have to depend on another person to tell them what it says, thus making them dependent on others. If you teach them to read and make good choices all you can do is hope they do that, but at least then they make them not follow somebody elses ideas. Example the Ten Commandments are a base for most laws in many societies yet many who would not want to see the murder of a loved one oppose them because they are religious. So do we forget them and go savage, also most religions and societies have some form of Ten Commandments just noy called that but they contain the same general rules for life.

OH and our buffalo don't cry tears but do drink a great deal of beer and produce a biproduct that is rain. This is like santa claus, easter bunny, tooth fairy, and a host of other things folks tell their kids all time. Just like storks bringing them into this world is or they are found under a cabbage in the garden. Kids must be taught to think for themselves and find answers to their own questions from reliable sources. If they can't read then all they have is somebody else telling them rain is from a Buffalo.... To say we can't let them read this or that will only draw them to wonder why.... which is good in some way as they will have to work to find answers to that, but it may not be the right one.....