NationStates Jolt Archive

Religious freedom and religious warfare are two topics which have both been mentioned in previous resolutions. In the case of the latter, UNR#19 (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=18) this is entirely inadequate, as the draft below mentions. The former, mentioned by both UNR#26 (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=25) and UNR#80 (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=79), is a more interesting topic, but suffice to say that I do not believe that these resolutions are effective at protecting both freedom of conscience and other human rights (again, see below).
Constructive criticism and comments are welcome, and I would be happy to expand upon my motivation for the resolution and the points made above if called upon to do so.
The text of the resolution is as follows:

Religious Freedom and Warfare
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Description: PRAISING the intentions of Resolution #19, Religious Tolerance, and its condemnation of religious warfare;

NOTING however that Resolution #19 fails to provide a definition for religious war, and;

CONCERNED that its condemnation of "wars fought in the name of God and religion" is dangerously ambiguous given some leaders' habit of using religious statements to encourage their populace even during legitimate warfare;

CONCERNED ALSO that the practices of some religions, notably those that carry out Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and/or "exorcism" (defined as the process of driving out a spirit by means of harming the body it supposedly inhabits), run contrary to both the principles and resolutions of the United Nations;

ASSERTING therefore that acts such as those above should under no circumstances be tolerated simply as a result of their being religious practice;

HEREBY RESOLVES:

1. Religious warfare shall be defined as any military action that is specifically begun, continued, or participated in for the primary purpose of attacking or harming the members or adherents of a particular religion or religious group, atheists or agnostics;

2. The United Nations shall condemn the warfare as defined in Articles 1 and 2 unequivocally and offer its support to diplomatic efforts to end conflicts of this nature;

URGES:

3. United Nations Member States to reconsider the place of religion within their own legal structures, such that it is subservient to United Nations resolutions, in order to protect the human rights that we have worked so hard to ensure;

4. UN Member States to introduce and enforce legislation that ensures both freedom of religion and religious tolerance, within the limits stated above.

New Ixion;11835869']Religious freedom and religious warfare are two topics which have both been mentioned in previous resolutions. In the case of the latter, UNR#19 (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=18) this is entirely inadequate, as the draft below mentions. The former, mentioned by both UNR#26 (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=25) and UNR#80 (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=79), is a more interesting topic, but suffice to say that I do not believe that these resolutions are effective at protecting both freedom of conscience and other human rights (again, see below).
Constructive criticism and comments are welcome, and I would be happy to expand upon my motivation for the resolution and the points made above if called upon to do so.
The text of the resolution is as follows:Religious Freedom and Warfare
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Description: PRAISING the intentions of Resolution #19, Religious Tolerance, and its condemnation of religious warfare;

NOTING however that Resolution #19 fails to provide a definition for religious war, and;

CONCERNED that its condemnation of "wars fought in the name of God and religion" is dangerously ambiguous given some leaders' habit of using religious statements to encourage their populace even during legitimate warfare;

CONCERNED ALSO that the practices of some religions, notably those that carry out Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and/or "exorcism" (defined as the process of driving out a spirit by means of harming the body it supposedly inhabits), run contrary to both the principles and resolutions of the United Nations;

ASSERTING therefore that acts such as those above should under no circumstances be tolerated simply as a result of their being religious practice;

HEREBY RESOLVES:

1. Religious warfare shall be defined as any military action that is specifically begun, continued, or participated in for the primary purpose of attacking or harming the members or adherents of a particular religion or religious group, atheists or agnostics;

2. The United Nations shall condemn the warfare as defined in Articles 1 and 2 unequivocally and offer its support to diplomatic efforts to end conflicts of this nature;

URGES:

3. United Nations Member States to reconsider the place of religion within their own legal structures, such that it is subservient to United Nations resolutions, in order to protect the human rights that we have worked so hard to ensure;

4. UN Member States to introduce and enforce legislation that ensures both freedom of religion and religious tolerance, within the limits stated above.

I certainly like the idea of condemning wars carried out for religious purposes. There may be a few troubles with a Resolution about it at the moment. I'm not sure that the idea would be considered duplication of R19. That one might have to be repealed before this one could go through. Further, I don't think you have to mention R19 in the text of your proposal. It is my opinion that proposals should be written with a very objective kind of voice, almost in a minimalist manner. Write what the problem is, briefly, so that you can justify the measures in the proposal, and then write the measures. To do that, you needn't write about the failings of the other Resolutions, and might be better off not anyway, even though there's not much to worry about in regards to a House of Cards violation. If it ever gets repealed, there'd be no point in talking about it anyway.

Really, the "CONCERNED" clause is more material for a repeal of R19 anyway.

Female genital mutilation is already outlawed, as per R62 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030178&postcount=63), there's no need to mention that here. Furthermore, I don't see what exorcism has to do with religious wars, nor do I see what principles the UN was founded on. Really, that whole clause can and probably should be struck. There's no need to single out religions. Wars fought in their name are bad enough, doesn't much matter what the name or practice is.

I think you need to adjust your aim. You seem to be writing more about your issues with religious practices than religious war. You should pick one part of the problem, and focus on it. Is it barbaric religious practices that you have trouble with? Or is it war that you're aiming to do away with? Pick one or the other, I don't recommend going after both with one swing.

Operative clause 1 is nice, but make sure that you're not stepping in too close to a duplication of R168 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11434528&postcount=169). I think it's a workable definition. The problem, as I said, is that your preamble clauses don't match the operative clauses. Focus on one or the other.

I don't see what Operative clause 2 has to say about religious war, but you mention it in itself. Might have been a typo.

Operative clause 3 could be seen as an ideological ban, if it weren't already so. UN Resolutions take precedent over National laws anyway. It's an unnecessary clause, and furthermore goes back to the big problem with this proposal -- what's the aim? You seem more interested in marginalizing religion as a force for anything in the world. Pick one problem and stick to it.

Operative clause 4 is unnecessary, as per the Universal Bill of Rights.

I'm going to make a suggestion -- Write a draft involving religious warfare, and only religious warfare. Then we can determine if R19 needs to be repealed. As far as other things involving religion -- theocratic rule, rituals -- I don't see any way that the UN can or should have a hand in it.


Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

This looks good. The honourable representative Viljakainen is quite correct that you should remove clause 4, however. Personally, I wouldn't mention exorcism, but I would leave the mention of FGM. Who knows, res. #62 may get repealed one day, and it'll be good to still have a UN condemnation of the practice.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Could we just have pope v dalai lama v ayatollah v arch druid tag team wrestling instead? That way we satisfy mankinds lust for a fight and settle the religious issues for a couple of weeks until the rematch?

Meaningless, prejudicial anti-religious rhetoric. Against.

As Norderia stated, the CONCERNED clause is a rather good point for the repeal of Resolution #19; however, most of the rest of the resolution seems to lack focus or any real new material. It restates several things that have been covered in previous Resolutions, which I have not the motivation nor time to locate for ease of reference.

In addition, I am quite disturbed by your definition of exorcism. Some religions that I do not know of may view the only method of driving evil spirits out of a possessed body as inflicting harm upon it - this is not a common practice, however. Exorcism is merely the act of driving a hostile spirit out of a body it does not belong to. There invariably some sort of a ritual involved, often rather lengthy, but very rarely involving bodily harm to the possessed person.

That, combined with that statement on exorcism's contradictory position to Religious Freedom and Tolerance and complete lack of relation to Religious Wars, as well as the existence of FGM already being banned in another resolution leads me to recommend at the very least the complete removal of that clause.

Rewriting the proposal to concentrate on the definition and clarification of Religious Wars would be far more useful; possibly repealing #19 and writing an entirely new proposal for it would be an even better direction.

1. Religious warfare shall be defined as any military action that is specifically begun, continued, or participated in for the primary purpose of attacking or harming the members or adherents of a particular religion or religious group, atheists or agnostics;

Um... sorry to be blunt, but this definition... well, it sucks. Religious wars can be initiated with the primary purpose of reclaiming land, retrieving artifacts, converting heretics, etc. In fact, one might argue that the primary purpose of any war isn't to "attack or harm" anyone. Killing people is just means to an end.

Wow.

This needs... a lot of work.

Ok, lots of comments. Many thanks to the Envoy from Norderia for his excellent comments on this issue. Whilst I am unable to write a second draft at this point I can tell you that I will make the following changes:

1. The title of the resolution will be changed to "Religious Warfare" and will focus on this only.

2. CONCERNED ALSO that the practices of some religions, notably those that carry out Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and/or "exorcism" (defined as the process of driving out a spirit by means of harming the body it supposedly inhabits), run contrary to both the principles and resolutions of the United Nations;
This paragraph will be removed.

3. ASSERTING therefore that acts such as those above should under no circumstances be tolerated simply as a result of their being religious practice;
This paragraph will be removed.

4. Clauses 3 and 4 will be removed.

5. I don't see what Operative clause 2 has to say about religious war, but you mention it in itself. Might have been a typo.
This was indeed a typo, having come from an earlier version. This will be corrected.

6. I also plan to change the references to UNR#19, but I am unsure as to how this may be achieved. Suggestions welcome.

CONCERNED ALSO that the practices of some religions, notably those that carry out Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and/or "exorcism" (defined as the process of driving out a spirit by means of harming the body it supposedly inhabits), run contrary to both the principles and resolutions of the United Nations;
Saying religion=FGM is the new Godwin.

FGM isn't bad because it's motivated by religion. FGM is bad because it's female genital mutilation - what, do you need a fucking picture or something? If an individual carries out FGM, they should be condemned and hanged for it. So lose this whole morally superior, smug, 15 year old wearing black denim, maybe if I'm atheist enough someone will actually love me bullshit.

ASSERTING therefore that acts such as those above should under no circumstances be tolerated simply as a result of their being religious practice;
They have nothing to do with this warfare. You're just trying to bandwagon votes on the basis of "if you vote against this, you support FGM".

I nearly got in trouble for telling someone to fuck off last time. Hopefully I won't even need to this time?

1. Religious warfare shall be defined as any military action that is specifically begun, continued, or participated in for the primary purpose of attacking or harming the members or adherents of a particular religion or religious group, atheists or agnostics;
This is already covered by The Eon Convention.

3. United Nations Member States to reconsider the place of religion within their own legal structures, such that it is subservient to United Nations resolutions, in order to protect the human rights that we have worked so hard to ensure;
No, absolutely not. "Subservient"? You're suggesting that divine word itself should be considered less important than the bureaucratic wafflings of an unaccountable international organization? This clause is one of the most hatefully regressive things I've read during my time here: no doubt, of course, it'll be trumpeted as a most progressive piece of legislation anyway. Because screw freedom of conscience for anybody else, right.

4. UN Member States to introduce and enforce legislation that ensures both freedom of religion and religious tolerance, within the limits stated above.
Completely irrelevant to the topic of religious warfare. Still, I'm glad you included this clause, as it helps highlight that resolution has nothing to do with improving the state of the laws of war, and is in fact just another tired anti-religious crusade by fundamentalists who can't accept a different point of view.

So yeah, we're not wild about this.

And what happened to your proposal on dirty bombs?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Yeah, man, what the dudes from OMGTKK and Gruenberg said.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

And what happened to your proposal on dirty bombs?
What happened to it?

It was ignored:headbang:. This piece of sh*t resolution has more traffic than it did despite several successive versions. People are more than ready to criticise a bad resolution, so I figured maybe I'd get your attention somehow.

A reasonably good resolution just gets cleaned up by the mods but bigotry? No, people are happy to feel morally superior by attacking other so, now that I have your attention, I will post the UN Radiological Weapons Ban again and hopefully, those who were so eager to attack me here will pass comment.

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone, and UNR#19 is still a mess. Mods feel free to close this thread.