NationStates Jolt Archive

Separate Church and State

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Haroutioun III

Description: Argument: Accepting that religion and other beliefs should be allowed to be practiced freely, it is important to keep religion out of Government, and Education.

NOTING that because there are many different types of religion, it can be viewed as a opinion.

REALISING the importance of a government that is neutral in religion so it can make unbias decisions.

AFFIRMING that schools should not be a place to promote a certain ideal but a place where one can learn many different ideas and opinions so that they can adopt their own belief.

REMINDING the world of the dangerous of fundamentalism and extremism when Church and State are kept together, and the large amount of corruption that follows.

Therefore, though the government needs to ensure that religion can be practiced freely in places of worship or in privacy, Church and State shall hereby be separate.
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Separate

There was an official mod ruling a while ago that the ideological ban rules also apply to Seperation of Church and State. Quite simply, you can't force such seperation.

I highly recommend that you go to the "Get Help" page and ask for the proposal to be deleted - then you will not be issued a warning when it is thrown through a Mod purge.

Out-of-Character:

Please take some time to read through this ruleset (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) before submitting proposals. It is very easy for newer players (in terms of UN activity, anyway) to make a mistake and earn a warning for submitting bad proposals. It is also wise to post a "draft" version of a proposal for critique by posters who have been in the UN for a while. That can often lead to improving a good proposal or rescuing a technically difficult proposal - and even longtime veterans request outside comments before submitting a proposal

[/OOC]

Which reminds me....


Do your warnings ever go away?

Do your warnings ever go away?
No, but they start to fade and run a bit after the server has run a few loads, more if Salusa uses bleach during the rinse and backup cycles.


It's possible to write a "separation of Church and State" proposal without violating the ideology ban. I've seen it done once or twice as an intellectual exercise. However, making unsubstantiated statements like "REMINDING the world of the dangerous of fundamentalism and extremism when Church and State are kept together, and the large amount of corruption that follows" isn't quite the approach you need.

As your proposal currently stands, it would destroy the only thing keeping Darsomir united as one single nation, that being the Exarchies that rule over the aristocracy and warlords. I would prefer not to have to deal with full scale Balkanisation, thank you very much.

Johannes
Representative to the UN for Her Holiness Aristhia.

It also constitutes an assault on the very foundation of nations like Gruenberg and the Eternal Kawaii.

It also constitutes an assault on the very foundation of nations like Gruenberg and the Eternal Kawaii.

And attacking Gruen and TEK is bad? :p

If I may, for a moment, vent a pet peeve of mine. It annoys me in the real world as well.

This resolution isn't a "Seperation of Church and State," but instead a "Seperation of Religion and State."

The original definition of speration of Church and State, as defined by the writers of the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution and further expounded upon by President Jefferson was the seperation between the leaders of state institutions and the leaders of religious institution. Jefferson wrote, for example, that declaring a feast or fast day (a national holiday is technically a "feast" day) is the role of the church and should be done by church leaders - not by the president of the United States. Likewise religious leaders should not be making secular laws of the land.

Well I thank you all for notifying me of the rule against Ideology Banning.

I still think it is silly to do that especially since an issue like Church/Religion and State is such a controversial issue and should be allowed in a political game of all things.

Anyway, thanks.

Bill of Rights to the US Constitution.


The trouble is any nation that say follows a so Called Bill of Rights could be considered promiting the same ideas as say might be the Ten Commandments. Either could be seen as ideas followed by extremists it all depends on what side of road you walk on.

Any government that promotes a so called Bill of Rights might have in them something that gives cause to execute those who don't agree with those Bill of Rights. Same could be said for the so called Ten Commandments, don't follow them in another place and you are executed. Thus who is more an extremist. Governments following some Bill or Rights or Religions following a Ten Commandments.

Thus why should either be allowed to be say taught in any schools or come into play in anything anywhere.

Well I thank you all for notifying me of the rule against Ideology Banning.

I still think it is silly to do that especially since an issue like Church/Religion and State is such a controversial issue and should be allowed in a political game of all things.

Anyway, thanks.

The problem is that many players want to have some control over their UN member state's government, and banning entire government types or economic systems would greatly hinder that ability. Ultimately, I'm guessing that pragmatism won out - more people playing, even at the expense of a subset of proposals being forbidden, was viewed as the greater good.

[NOTE: I am not a moderator/admin. Thus, my speculation as to the reason this was decided is exactly that. If it was decided after my arrival on NS, and I'm forgetting that, I'm a twit. A lazy twit.]

Also one of the big problems is many folks have never read the First Ammendment as set up... They have only read about it or heard what others say it says. This is the First Ammendment of the US..

Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


What to me it reads is that government may not make a law that sets up any religion as the only one.. Then it goes on to say that they may not make any law that prohibits the free exercise thereof. Thus it can't make a law that keeps people from praying in say a school or public building as that would prohibit the free exercise of a religion. So the so called government under this has no power to promote a religion or restrict it in this. In other words government must live with all religions and can do nothing to stop them from exercising their religion.. They have to use other laws that may be broken to stop folks from doing bad things in name of religion. Tespassing on private property, assault on somebody, that sort of thing but not simply jail them because they don't like them as a certain religion. As note it uses the word 'peaceably' before assembly so if one gets out of hand then they can be dealt with...

Also note it says abridging the freedom of speech... which means to shorten something, in this case speech. If a person is not allowed to speek period then you're not shortening his/her speech you are simply stopping it and this says nothing about stopping it in the first place. As you can't shorten something not spoken since their is nothing to shorten. Thus you can stop them from speaking period just once they are started you have to let them finish it..

Then it says have the right to petition government; but nothing requires government to act on that just let you groan and moan about your problems. Then send you home and if you refuse to leave they can take legal action against you.... as that become an assembly that is not peacefull.


Also not sure if this the exact way it was punctuated in the original writing as that will have an effect on how it reads and each person may understand it.


I know we are not to go real world but one might consider this to be something some NS nation might write and follow.. so it relevent here... and full of loopholes...

:headbang: I can't stand this. It's a perpetual "does anyone ever read the resolution" problem. Reading is not all that difficult. Honestly it's not.

"Abridging the freedom of speech," means that the verb applies to the object, not the modifier of the object. Thus we are "abridging the freedom" not "abridging the speech itself." Bad Zeldon. Naughty Zeldon!

Back to the first clause. The clause as written was simply meant to prohibit a federal religion. Ironically several states actually had "state" religions at the time of the signing of the constitution but the spirit of the law made them change their constitutions to be just like the Federal one. Jefferson expanded it to include the notion that since the state had no authority to establish a church, the head of state had no authority to act as a head of a church. Later this was applied to the government in general. In the 20th century this mutated to the seperation of general public and religion.

I admit I am biased on the Bill of Rights, but frankly I much like the notion or ordered rights, such as in Canada where lower numbered rights trump higher numbered rights. (Technically the 1st amendment doesn't trump the 5th amendment for example.) In any case I find no reason for globally adopting any such resolution, and I see no posibility for this body to adopt such resolution. But most resolutions like this never get that far into the debate anyway.

OOC:

Zeldon: One of the main reasons why people like me haven't read the US Bill of Rights is because we aren't bound by it. That is, we aren't from the US. But we have separation of Church and State here in Australia as well, in that for an official religion to be declared, there would have to be a full referendum.
We have a different understanding of the phrase 'Separation of Church and State'.

IC:
Perhaps I should point out something. Darsomir isn't opposed to separation of religious and political power in of of itself. We already have that. At any one time, only one of the Exarchs is supreme in terms of the Flame. The other two, excepting special occasions, take that time to rule the nation of Darsomir.
There is a distinction, a separation if you will, from when Her Holiness Aristhia is Exarch, and when she is First Lady of Aringull.

Our problem with the proposal as it stands is that it would necessitate both Her Holiness Aristhia and His Holiness Berenon stepping down from their secular roles, as they are not allowed to retire from the Exarchate. This would lead to a disintegration of Darsomir as a single entity, as various nobles attempted to carve out their own fiefs without having a higher power to set them back.

Johannes,
UN Representative for Her Holiness Aristhia

the notion or ordered rights, such as in Canada where lower numbered rights trump higher numbered rights.Curious concept. Not sure I agree with it, really.

in Canada where lower numbered rights trump higher numbered rights.
.... Huh? Not to start a Canadian politics discussion, but I'm curious to know where you got this notion. I've never heard that. In fact, I know of at least one case where a higher section trumps a lower section: Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/) allows a government to disregard Section 15 (non-discrimination on age, race, sex, etc.).

As for the resolution itself, a blanket statement of "Church and State shall be separate" isn't the way you need to go. You need to look at more specific things, such as removing official religion, or urging against the use of religion in public schools. Although I'm not sure how to do this in order to get around the ideological ban...

"Abridging the freedom of speech," means that the verb applies to the object, not the modifier of the object. Thus we are "abridging the freedom" not "abridging the speech itself." Bad Zeldon. Naughty Zeldon!.
Sorry was not all that good in English class... But still you can't abridge/shorten either freedom or speech if it hasn't moved some place to get lenght to it.

What Jefferson may have said later about the BR.. makes little as folks today read them and judge them on their own merits. Which is often the problem today with translating what they meant then. As times change and things change.. Take the right to bear arms. Back then it was a single shot rifle that most had the right to bear. Thus one might consider how the 'Founding Fathers' would view owning an M16 or even M14 with modifications.

Also on the issue of religion in schools. The early government printed Bibles and issued them to schools as readers. One reason for this was parents who could not read knew this book well as kids they often learned to reciet certain passages from it. Thus it was not new to them so they acepted it more than something they knew little about. Like some of the articles and books the 'Founding Fathers' might have written. Thus where was Separation of Church and state if Bibles were used as readers in American schools early on..

Now as far as NSUN idea of keeping religion and government separate. I think that one needs to work on keeping the wrong religion out of government. Those that would use the forces of goverment to take over the world and promote their so called religion or even their government. Where a religion/government comforms to world standards leave it alone and let it move forward but when it gets out of line deal with it for what it is. A terroristic or extremist nation or religion that has no regards for the rights of others outside it beliefs. Their are many nations in NSUN who are based on different ideals but most of these understand this and work in peace with others thus getting things done without violence and wars between those who are on opposit sides of the fence on an issue. Also they work as a group to protect the other knowing full well that they alone can't survive with the odds stacked against them.. thus they need each other to survive and sometimes have to 'sleep with the wolf' to keep 'the fox' out of 'the henhouse'.

.... Huh? Not to start a Canadian politics discussion, but I'm curious to know where you got this notion.

I'm courious about this myself. I think some Canadian told me this a number of years ago and I just took it for granted. On the other hand, section 33 is in the Application of Charter section and not in a section on listed rights. The sections are ordered Fundamental Freedoms, Democratic Rights, Mobility Rights, Legal Rights, Equality Rights, Official Languages of Canada and Minority Language Educational Rights. This is clearly a priority ordering structure which the bill of rights simply lacked because it was just a number of admendments to the constitution. Not all of the amendments passed by the way, one amendment that limited the ability of congress to give itself a pay raise to only future sessions of congress was never approved.

What Jefferson may have said later about the BR.. makes little as folks today read them and judge them on their own merits. Which is often the problem today with translating what they meant then. As times change and things change.. Take the right to bear arms. Back then it was a single shot rifle that most had the right to bear. Thus one might consider how the 'Founding Fathers' would view owning an M16 or even M14 with modifications.

Things do change. Conditions do change. But laws can and must be designed to allow for a process of evolution. Discarding the past dscards the foundation upon which those laws were written, and a house built on sand will quickly fall when the floods make the sand quicksand. So any text, even legal text must be understood in the context it was written in. If that context no longer seems to apply then the text needs to be chagned to account for that fact.

Considering what the Founding Fathers might think about an M16 or M14 might indeed be a very interesting and humorous exercise. Adams would be shocked. Jefferson would be for it of couse. Franklyn would be laughing his bottom off. But that's getting off topic I suppose. (Have we ever been on topic in this thread? I wonder.)

The notion of "Seperation of Religion and State" is still something that exists in only a few liberal minds. (Note the word few, as not all liberals are so inclined.) Every session of goverment branches (congress and the courts) begins with a prayer, military chaplains are a matter of course, and churches still get massive tax breaks. Politicians are still free to quote the religious book of their choice (although placing it publically on display is still moderately taboo) and are often frequently seen at various religious venues in order to get votes.

The Seperation of Church and State was more than just a division from an association between religious and civil leaders. State Churches often forced membership, compelled the people to believe in a specific creed, prohibited other forms of religious expression. There is a difference, somewhat between the King of England, head of church and state, who made it a crime in England to be a Roman Catholic, and the current state of Afganistan, with seperate heads of church and state, where the current civil law is founded after a specific religious set of principles but other religious organizations are permitted or tollerated (as long as you don't convert from the right one to the wrong one). Ironically one can consider the "Seperation of Religion and State" a violation of the "Seperation of Church and State" because it is to a significant extent modeled after the notions of French Secularism which was ironically an attempt to replace the Catholic Church with the Secular goddess of Reason. But I'm going off topic again.

You can't keep the wrong ones out of government. The wrong ones simply take over and caue the nation to leave the UN. The ability to walk out the door if you don't like what the UN is doing does have a severe limit on what the UN can do, and it would be foolish if not insane to ignore that. The UN can't make the world a better place. We can only make ourselves a better place and in so doing encourage others to do likewise.

As members of a state that regards our spirituality and hence our faith as key to our national identity and right to life, it would be impossible for us to vote for seperating RELIGION/FAITH and State. However, as our religious position openly supports the idea of people choosing their own religions and having the right to live their own way PROVIDING it respects other beliefs, we do not have an issue here in Zav. The issue with this proposal (which is far too inflammatory as it stands and therefore, by its nature, not respectful of other's beliefs) is whether any religion or faith that does not respect other faiths within its national boundaries, should be seperated from the workings of the state. That is a different motion entirely.

We feel this is the right way, the spiritual way.