NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: UN Resolution #101: Right to Learn about Evolution (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: UNDERSTANDING that the theory of evolution has a valid scientific basis and deserves to be taught in schools,

NOTING that "Right to Learn About Evolution" may be construed as hostile to religions that have a difficult time reconciling centuries-old beliefs with recent scientific discoveries, however indisputable they may appear,

AWARE that evolution is not the only scientific teaching that has been controversial,

BELIEVING that a more robust proposal concerning scientific education is necessary,

CONVINCED that the theory of evolution cannot stand on its own in terms of explaining the origins of the Universe,

UNDERSTANDING that a resolution calling for a comprehensive scientific curriculum in all member states' educational systems should be submitted quickly after "Right to Learn About Evolution" is stricken from the list of active resolutions,

THE UNITED NATIONS:

REPEALS Resolution #101 "Right to Learn About Evolution," passed on 8 May 2005.

I know that this resolution has withstood past attempts to repeal it. What I am proposing is that this resolution in and of itself does not adequately protect scientific education. However, it does something, and if we remove what it does protect, the push for a more comprehensive scientific education proposal should be greater.

NOTING that "Right to Learn About Evolution" may be construed as hostile to religions that have a difficult time reconciling centuries-old beliefs with recent scientific discoveries, however indisputable they may appear,

Real religions have nothing to fear from scientific discoveries.
It's one of the things (such as: the level of love and compassion inside religious teaching, the level of non-humanitarian-use money that a clergy/religious-administration get from the believers or the level of violence) that draw the border between a religious and a what is called sectarianism.
I think it's important to know where the line is between this 2 opposite concepts.

CONVINCED that the theory of evolution cannot stand on its own in terms of explaining the origins of the Universe,

It's absolutly not its purpose. Also you may consider that the existence of god doesn't explain the orign of God, as the statement that "god exists by itself" wich is exactly the same statement as "the universe exists as itself".

I'm very glad to see someone trying to pick up where I failed! I jumped the gun and submitted it straightaway, and we see where that got us.

That said, I have some issues with the draft. Let's take a look-see.

AWARE that evolution is not the only scientific teaching that has been controversial,

I'm not quite sure what you are intending with this clause.

CONVINCED that the theory of evolution cannot stand on its own in terms of explaining the origins of the Universe,

Strike this clause. It's unnecessary and contentious. We aren't here to debate the merits of Evolution, or lack thereof. I realize that this may be a conciliatory prhase aimed at creationists or religious-types, but it would be much better if you simply eliminated it.

UNDERSTANDING that a resolution calling for a comprehensive scientific curriculum in all member states' educational systems should be submitted quickly after "Right to Learn About Evolution" is stricken from the list of active resolutions,

Change this from "UNDERSTANDING" to "SUGGESTING." Understanding doesn't make sense in the context of the clause.

Other than that, it's good. Perhaps you could throw in a clause like "REALIZING that individual nations have the right to control their own education systems" or some such thing.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassdor to the UN

Real religions have nothing to fear from scientific discoveries.
It's one of the things (such as: the level of love and compassion inside religious teaching, the level of non-humanitarian-use money that a clergy/religious-administration get from the believers or the level of violence) that draw the border between a religious and a what is called sectarianism.
I think it's important to know where the line is between this 2 opposite concepts.


Who are you to say what a real religion is? How very presumptous of you.

L. Pendankr
Ambassador

While I do recommend that the delegation from Ice Hockey Players take the advice of Ambassador Pendankr, I am always in favor of a legal repeal of micromanaging legislation, especially legislation that interferes in national education systems.

Besides, I'm in an amazingly good mood right now. I think I should change my clothes though. This sleeve is torn, and my belt is broken.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Who are you to say what a real religion is? How very presumptous of you.

L. Pendankr
Ambassador

If you read me, you will see that I don't define religion, i was just trying to draw a border between "relious" and "sectarianism" and I hope you will agree with me that the 2 are pretty different.

So the question is:
Where to draw the border between "religous" and "sectarianism"

My answer was to take into account several things:
-the level of love and compassion inside religious teaching, (and the level of compassion towards believers of other religions and non-believers)
-the level of non-humanitarian-use money that a clergy/religious-administration get from the believers
-the level of violence
-the level of hostility, without a scientific approach, against scientific discoveries
-the level of freedom of believers to be able to opt-out

If you read me, you will see that I don't define religion, i was just trying to draw a border between "relious" and "sectarianism" and I hope you will agree with me that the 2 are pretty different.

So the question is:
Where to draw the border between "relious" and "sectarianism"

My answer was to take into account several things:
-the level of love and compassion inside religious teaching,
-the level of non-humanitarian-use money that a clergy/religious-administration get from the believers
-the level of violence
-the level of hostility against scientific discoveries, without a scientific approach

No, you are defining what religion is and isn't. In any religion, what you call "sectarianism" can be easily justified with religious literature and tradition. If my religion tells me that it is a sin to give money to the poor and it is a sin to deny that my gods are true, then that is what my religion says. Not all religions are based upon loving kindness, happiness, and good feelings. YOU do not have a right to tell me what is religious and what is not.

This is NOT a religious debate. This is a debate about a piece of legislation that has no business being on the books. You raised the same objection to the same type of clause in the last debate about this, and you seem to be the only one here who is not sympathetic to certain religious beliefs.

Do not bring religion into this when it is not the focus of the legislation. This repeal does not say "EVOLUTION IS BAD BECAUSE GOD SAID SO," it is simply acknowledging that some religions do not accept the theory of evolution.

Oh, and Accelerus- I've got some bactine and Ben-Gay if you're sore.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassdor to the United Nations
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

As with the previous repeal attempt, I still see no valid reason to repeal this. Especially since I doubt a replacement would ever get through, and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the original resolution. Which, I must remind you, does not mandate that all students shall learn evolution. It says they cannot be forbidden from doing so.


CONVINCED that the theory of evolution cannot stand on its own in terms of explaining the origins of the Universe,

In addition to the valid comments made by the representative of Love and esteral, I should add that enshrining such a sentence in UN legislation, where it may be interpreted as an affirmation of the existence of a god or gods, will and should meet with much criticism.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

No, you are defining what religion is and isn't. In any religion, what you call "sectarianism" can be easily justified with religious literature and tradition. If my religion tells me that it is a sin to give money to the poor and it is a sin to deny that my gods are true, then that is what my religion says. Not all religions are based upon loving kindness, happiness, and good feelings. YOU do not have a right to tell me what is religious and what is not.

This is NOT a religious debate. This is a debate about a piece of legislation that has no business being on the books. You raised the same objection to the same type of clause in the last debate about this, and you seem to be the only one here who is not sympathetic to certain religious beliefs.

Do not bring religion into this when it is not the focus of the legislation. This repeal does not say "EVOLUTION IS BAD BECAUSE GOD SAID SO," it is simply acknowledging that some religions do not accept the theory of evolution.

Sorry, but it's not me who bring "religion" in the debate, as it's the text of this repeal which indeed bring it:

NOTING that "Right to Learn About Evolution" may be construed as hostile to religions that have a difficult time reconciling centuries-old beliefs with recent scientific discoveries, however indisputable they may appear,

It's why it's essantial to draw a line between what the we consider as "religious" and what the we consider as "sectarianism".



I have myself a pretty good consideration of religions, and I feel really sad you try your best to undermine the good consideration of religions I have, by stating:

If my religion tells me that it is a sin to give money to the poor and it is a sin
Not all religions are based upon loving kindness, happiness, and good feelings

Do you dislike religions so much?

As with the previous repeal attempt, I still see no valid reason to repeal this. Especially since I doubt a replacement would ever get through, and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the original resolution. Which, I must remind you, does not mandate that all students shall learn evolution. It says they cannot be forbidden from doing so.


I must Agree.
The original resolution does not "Mandate" that evolution be taught in school.
If it did I would be in favor of a repeal.

I would also oppose any legislation which "Required" that Creation be taught in school.

Sorry, but it's not me who bring "religion" in the debate, as it's the text of this repeal which indeed bring it:



Take a look at my suggested changes to the resolution text. I don't want those clauses anymore than you or Arridia do.


I have myself a pretty good consideration of religions, and I feel really sad you try your best to undermine the good consideration of religions I have, by stating...


...Do you dislike religions so much?

Don't lecture me, because you'll look silly when I tell you that I am well-versed in multiple religious traditions. Have you ever heard of the land of Sumer? It's a legendary place from that mythical land known as "Real Life." The gods of Sumeria were vicious, selfish creatures who created humankind for the express purpose of serving them. To the Sumerians, the gods did not grant favors. When you prayed, you prayed for the gods to abate their wrath. There was no concept of salvation or charity. This is what thousands of people believed, as their religion and their faith.

Dislike religion? I am a very faithful man. Now go shut the hell up, and stop questioning my faith.

Can we please get back to the repeal text? Did anyone take a look at the suggestions I had?

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

Take a look at my suggested changes to the resolution text. I don't want those clauses anymore than you or Arridia do.

Thanks

Allech-Atreus, please forgive my irony. But how can someone has a good views of religions if you state such things as:?

Not all religions are based upon loving kindness, happiness, and good feelings

Then if we consider a religion as not necessary "based upon loving kindness, happiness, and good feelings", why do we have to care so much about "religions in general"?

We should then care only about religions "based upon loving kindness, happiness, and good feelings" and then, the following clause doesn't make sense anymore, as we we don't have to care about religion with a high hostility, without a scientific approach, against scientific discoveries

NOTING that "Right to Learn About Evolution" may be construed as hostile to religions that have a difficult time reconciling centuries-old beliefs with recent scientific discoveries, however indisputable they may appear,


PS, Allech-Atreus: I hope that you will notice that I never attacked "religion" (or if you prefer "religions "based upon loving kindness, happiness, and good feelings") as I have a great respect for them.

My point is just to argue against this clause of this proposal which is justifying "sectarianism" and "integrism".

I would like also to repeat a sentence said hundreds of time by many religious leaders:
"fundamentalism/sectarianism/integrism is the opposite of religious"