NationStates Jolt Archive

REGRETTING the threat to human rights which is the suppression of learning about different theories of life origin;

AWARE that some of causes of this suppression are political and/or religious based fears that different theories on the origin of life are alternative and/or contradictory to the dominant belief system of a country;

NOTING that religions shouldn't feel threatened by Origins theories alone. Furthermore it is highly unlikely that God is so malevolent as to give us should there be a supreme, omniscient being who created the universe, it would provide evidence supporting these theories if there wasn't a chance they were true;

NOTING that religions shouldn't feel threatened by origin theories, it is highly unlikely that, should there be a supreme, omniscient being who created the universe, it would provide evidence to support these theories if there was no chance that they are true.

EMPHASIZING the United Nations must collectively discourage the suppression of the grand unifying themes of such theories. Teachers of the ideas should also be free from imprisonment and persecution.

CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include which ever theories on the origin of life it's eduction ministry (or comparable organization) sees fit. This will not be interpreted by the UN as evidence of suppression. Suppression is defined as written laws preventing the teaching of various different theories or punishing those who teach them.

MANDATES a strong symbolical disapproval against any member state that persists to physically imprison / punish teachers or students for engaging in studies (be they biological, philosophical, or theological) concerning the origin of life.

REITERATES the need for member nations to allow students to learn about different Origins theories;

ASKS member nations work with world leaders to prevent the suppression of this material in the classroom.
you may start telling me how much I'm and idiot for not supporting Evolution exclusively... right about now.


Note on history: blue things were added, red thing were deleted. The brighter, the newer (by 1/16 of brightness, any entries form the original, or older than 15 edit are black (if they were blue) or gone (if they were red)).

Furthermore it is unlikely that God is so malevolent as to give us evidence supporting these theories if there wasn't a chance they were true;
Oh really? I know that I've been granted visions that were totally false by the Dragon, as have the other Priests. A god does not have to be malevolent to give misinformation. In many cases it serves a good purpose. I was once given a vision that there was a snake in my bed. I woke up immediately and found no snake, however when I went to the kitchen to get a glass of water, I found a heretic spy. The Dragon in his wisdom knew that that would be the likely outcome.

Bajros, UN Representative for the Empire of the Great Holy Dragon

The delegation from Ambrose-Douglas applauds the tact with which this resolution was put forward. However, we would like to make a few sugguestions regarding changes.

In the NOTING section, the mention of a "God", while not specifically endorsing any religion, does tend to lean towards the Christian faith point of view. While we do not think that second section of NOTING should be in there at all (who are we to presume we can fathom what a supreme diety is thinking with such actions), it would read more neutrally if worded this way, we believe:

NOTING that religions shouldn't feel threatened by origin theories, it is highly unlikely that, should there be a supreme, omniscient being who created the universe, it would provide evidence to support these theories if there was no chance that they are true.

Other than this change, we feel that the proposal is well written and would support it, even though our government does not, and will not, give any money to ANY religious organization.

Regards,
Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Lands
The Federation of Ambrose Douglas

The delegation from Ambrose-Douglas applauds the tact with which this resolution was put forward. However, we would like to make a few sugguestions regarding changes.

In the NOTING section, the mention of a "God", while not specifically endorsing any religion, does tend to lean towards the Christian faith point of view. While we do not think that second section of NOTING should be in there at all (who are we to presume we can fathom what a supreme diety is thinking with such actions), it would read more neutrally if worded this way, we believe:

NOTING that religions shouldn't feel threatened by origin theories, it is highly unlikely that, should there be a supreme, omniscient being who created the universe, it would provide evidence to support these theories if there was no chance that they are true.

Other than this change, we feel that the proposal is well written and would support it, even though our government does not, and will not, give any money to ANY religious organization.

Regards,
Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Lands
The Federation of Ambrose Douglas
you have a point.
also, you shouldn't give money to religions, just let them "spread their lies" unhindered...;)

Honourable Delegates,

It is the opinion of the Kingdom of Kitsunestan that such matters should be handled by each individual nation, and not as the United Nations as a whole. Should a nation have 98% of its citizens practice one religion, which is the official religion of that nation, it should not be required to learn the beliefs, theories, or teachings of other religions or academic institutes.

In short, Kitsunestan does not believe the United Nations has the authority to propose legislation dictating what a nation should teach its students. With regards to this, Kitsunestan makes a motion to question the competency of those who suggested such a proposal.

OCC: In Robert's Rules, "a motion to question the competency of ___" is made when a member believes that what another member has suggested should not be lawfully possible

Furthermore, Kitsunestan calls a point of order on the nations who have bluntly offended the religious rights of the Kitsuneian delegates.

Sincerely,

Sir Robert Banks
UN Royal Embassador to the King
The Kingdom of Kitsunestan

OOC: ahem
IC: I would like to point out, to highly respected mister Banks that, the resolution, should it pass, would not dictate what you have to teach, but what you can forbid to teach. you are not obligated to fund such teaching, and in fact, much as we regret it you can manipulate people into not teaching by threat of taking away funding you do give them, if you do so covertly. you just can't oppress people who teach it, by imprisoning them or threatening them overtly.

sincerely yours,
Logan Surnamson, Ambassador to the UN.

To the Honourable Logan Surnamson,

It is the will of the citizens of Kitsunestan that those who teach the forbiden subjects within the borders of Kitsunestan should be tried and exiled for Heresy. Such a decision is the will of the people in the following of their religious beliefs, which should not be tampered with by the United Nations.

But regardless of such, It still remains that the the Honourable Logan Surnamson has offended the religious rights of Kitsunestan in his sarcastic comment, and Kitsunestan requests an apology.

Sincerely,

Sir Robert Banks.
UN Royal Embassador to the King
Kingdom of Kitsunestan

OOC: sarcastic whaa? that's it- I'm going to sleep.

you have a point.
also, you shouldn't give money to religions, just let them "spread their lies" unhindered...;)

OCC: I am both personally offended, and the characters I portray find that statement offensive.
-Ash

I take it you are intending to repeal resolution #101, The Right To Learn About Evolution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8873880&postcount=102), since it duplicates it just about everywhere.

OCC: I am both personally offended, and the characters I portray find that statement offensive.
-Ash

The delegation from Ambrose-Douglas would like to take this opprotunity to tell the delegation from Kitsunestan to lighten up. The statement was made in jest, hence why it was put in quotes, and if that is his opinion, so be it. He does not have to apologize to you, and I certainly hope that he won't. Trying and exiling those who do not agree with your religious doctrine, indeed. You should be ashamed of yourself. Mr. Surnamson has in no way breeched your "religious rights", anymore than he has breeched ours.

Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Lands
The Federation of Ambrose-Douglas
Practicing Pastafarian

OOC: Pretty much exactly what I said IC, but much less eloquently, and much more insult and profanity-laden... so I will just leave that to your imagination.

~Ben
Practicing Pastafarian

The religious leader of Ugerland feel that amendment should be made to all mentions of the word God and have them replaced with God(s) as some religions that are practiced in many diffrent countries involve the theory that there are multiple gods.

The religious leader of Ugerland feel that amendment should be made to all mentions of the word God and have them replaced with God(s) as some religions that are practiced in many diffrent countries involve the theory that there are multiple gods.
that was already done... :confused:
(please note that everything in red is just there so you could easily see the changes, and won't be in the actual proposal)

I take it you are intending to repeal resolution #101, The Right To Learn About Evolution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8873880&postcount=102), since it duplicates it just about everywhere.
when and if this resolution passes we can repeal #101. I happen to like #101. ;)

when and if this resolution passes we can repeal #101. I happen to like #101. ;)
I think what the representative from Gobbannium was saying is that you would need to repeal 101 first since this duplicates it.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

IC: that's a catch 22! if we repeal in now, the time between the repeal and the passing will be used to imprison all the proponents of Evolutionary Theory, in countries that had been looking forward to this for decades. if we pass the resolution first, it'll be duplicated.

I would like to pitch the idea that only one origins theory is covered the proposal and thus the intersection is rather small.
If the majority of your Proposal is covered by an existing Resolution, your Proposal is toast.

There are situations where a new proposal has been able to be proposed first and then the old one "repealed as obsolete" but generally the old proposal has to be repealed first.

Our guest representative, Felko Sluggo, a nudibranch from the planet Whatsuch, proposes that all human evolutionary theories are wrong according to the Great Zorb, he finds this proposal to be excessively human centered, and asks that we include alien evolutionary theory as part of the proposal. He further states that god has not been properly defined in this case in comparison to evolutionary theory, and that he has some 9 billion names for this supposed entity.

Regards,

Rex Smiley

IC: that's a catch 22! if we repeal in now, the time between the repeal and the passing will be used to imprison all the proponents of Evolutionary Theory, in countries that had been looking forward to this for decades. if we pass the resolution first, it'll be duplicated.
Welcome to the wonders of UN resolutions. Now is your proposal worth letting all those nasty nations which have been slavering for the opportunity to imprison people for decades (or about two years, whichever is the shorter) have their fun for however long it takes you to get this passed? I don't think so, personally.

I would like to pitch the idea that only one origins theory is covered the proposal and thus the intersection is rather small.
I would bat back the idea that since evolution is the only "origins theory" robust enough to match the existing data, the interesection is the entire thing. Using generally identical language does not help your argument.