Libertiua
30-05-2007, 01:57
RECOGNIZES that any and all wars fought in the name of God(s) or officially recognized religions should be opposed.
NOTES that condemnation of religious wars may be deemed intolerant by certain religions, thus raising a serious consistency issue if the government is teaching tolerance, while acting intolerant in the eyes of religious groups. This places the government in a bad situation.
REASONS that government has no place in promoting tolerance, as it may be seen as favoring one ideology over another. And any such attempt can be a violation of Article 2 of the universal bill of rights, in that the resolution could encourage governments to punish those who are intolerant.
FURTHERMORE NOTES that to be consistent, this bill should have extended to mandating tolerance of all ideologies, and tolerance of the intolerant. Neither of which are favorable.
OBSERVES that Resolution #19 does not bother to define “tolerance”. Nor does it define religion. Thus, the task of the government to teach understanding of religion, or to attempt to make it’s people tolerant, are difficult. The ambiguity leaves open the room for serious problems.
REASONS that without a definition of tolerance, or religion, this act is meaningless. And could lead to a violation of Article 2 of the universal bill of rights.
EMPHASIZING that this bill is unnecessary, and does little to actually achieve it’s own goals.
CONCLUDES that any government mandates of tolerance of one ideology over another could actually lead to hostile, intolerant behavior, or feelings. And that without limits on how a government could make it’s society tolerant of religion, could likely lead to laws against what could be deemed “intolerant speech against religion”. Which violates Article 2 of the universal bill of rights.
and REPEALS UN Resolution #19 Religious Tolerance
NOTES that condemnation of religious wars may be deemed intolerant by certain religions, thus raising a serious consistency issue if the government is teaching tolerance, while acting intolerant in the eyes of religious groups. This places the government in a bad situation.
REASONS that government has no place in promoting tolerance, as it may be seen as favoring one ideology over another. And any such attempt can be a violation of Article 2 of the universal bill of rights, in that the resolution could encourage governments to punish those who are intolerant.
FURTHERMORE NOTES that to be consistent, this bill should have extended to mandating tolerance of all ideologies, and tolerance of the intolerant. Neither of which are favorable.
OBSERVES that Resolution #19 does not bother to define “tolerance”. Nor does it define religion. Thus, the task of the government to teach understanding of religion, or to attempt to make it’s people tolerant, are difficult. The ambiguity leaves open the room for serious problems.
REASONS that without a definition of tolerance, or religion, this act is meaningless. And could lead to a violation of Article 2 of the universal bill of rights.
EMPHASIZING that this bill is unnecessary, and does little to actually achieve it’s own goals.
CONCLUDES that any government mandates of tolerance of one ideology over another could actually lead to hostile, intolerant behavior, or feelings. And that without limits on how a government could make it’s society tolerant of religion, could likely lead to laws against what could be deemed “intolerant speech against religion”. Which violates Article 2 of the universal bill of rights.
and REPEALS UN Resolution #19 Religious Tolerance