NationStates Jolt Archive

I am currently unable to officially start a repeal process, due to my lack of two endorsements. So I present my arguments below, in the hopes that someone else will start the repeal process for me, and simply copy the below:

COMMENDS the good intentions of the original resolution.

RECOGNIZES that any and all wars fought in the name of God(s) or Religion should be opposed.

NOTES that condemnation of religious wars may be deemed intolerant by certain religions, thus raising a serious consistency issue.

REASONS that government has no place in mandating tolerance. And any such mandate is a violation of Article 2 of the universal bill of rights, and violates it’s own mandate.

FURTHERMORE NOTES that to be consistent, this bill may very well extend to mandating tolerance of differing political ideologies, and tolerance of the intolerant. Either way, in violation of it self.

OBSERVES that Resolution #19 does not bother to define “tolerance”. Nor does it define religion.

REASONS that without a definition of tolerance, this act is meaningless. And is a violation of Article 2 of the universal bill of rights.

EMPHASIZING that this bill violates Article 2 of the universal bill of rights, and is self contradictory.

CONCLUDES that any government mandates of tolerance, where defined or otherwise, are illegal - per Article 2 of the universal bill of rights unnecessary - contradictory and to demand tolerance is, in itself, intolerant, and an overstepping of any government’s role.

and REPEALS UN Resolution #19 Religious Tolerance

Methinks thou doth repeat thyself too much. Also, how exactly does religious tolerance have anything to do with political ideologies? Now, I can see where political parties and ideologies based either solely or primarily on religious viewpoints may possibly fall under this, but you'd have to specify that for the mainstream players out there who may tend to read without bothering to think about what they're reading. Let's face it, most people like to have everything spelled out and handed to them on a silver platter. That, however, is beside the point.

Basically, stop repeating yourself and use more specifics so the majority of people will tend to agree with you since you'll be giving them a hard case against which to argue. Cut off all avenues of retreat, and you'll see victory.


And stop repeating yourself.

(yes, I know I repeated myself, but I'm trying to make a point)

Religious war is not a form of free expression. Further, The Universal Bill of Rights protects individuals, not governments, whereas Religious Tolerance restricts governments. Otherwise, one could say that prohibiting a censorship law is in turn censorship, and then everyone's heads explode.

Some specific comments
COMMENDS the good intentions of the original resolution.
Where did the idea that this was a default necessity for all repeals? It seems like every repeal has to start 'It's not you, it's me...'. Why???

Furthermore, you clearly don't think the original resolution's intentions - promotion of tolerance - are good - given you feel this violates freedom of conscience. So why say it?
NOTES that condemnation of religious wars may be deemed intolerant by certain religions, thus raising a serious consistency issue.
Well, take a wild guess where those religions can stick it.
FURTHERMORE NOTES that to be consistent, this bill may very well extend to mandating tolerance of differing political ideologies, and tolerance of the intolerant. Either way, in violation of it self.
I sort of agree, but I think your phrasing is awful. We have been considering a resolution on religious freedom using the following statement: 'All persons are entitled to the most extensive religious liberty, commensurate with a similar liberty for all other persons'. This original resolution does not have the qualification.

But your argument could be more sharply worded.
OBSERVES that Resolution #19 does not bother to define “tolerance”. Nor does it define religion.
You've kinda screwed yourself here, because this point invalidates your previous ones about the proposal mandating tolerance. If it can be defined to mean squat, then it's not really a problem; similarly if intolerant religions can be defined away.
CONCLUDES that any government mandates of tolerance, where defined or otherwise, are illegal - per Article 2 of the universal bill of rights unnecessary - contradictory and to demand tolerance is, in itself, intolerant, and an overstepping of any government’s role.
This may be true, but the resolution doesn't do this. It simply says that the UN:
'support and promote a greater understanding
of all religions and promote more tolerance of
differences of religion.'

There's no jackbooted Tolerancefuhrer empowered by this resolution, that I can see; it simply advances a statement of intent.

We probably wouldn't vote against a reasonable repeal, but we won't support this one, and we don't see the repeal a high priority.

-- Samantha Benson
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

Thank you for your constructive criticisms.

I'm not so sure, given you've just submitted it as is anyway.