NationStates Jolt Archive

Neutral State Act

Believing that it is possible to bring about a more humane world, one based upon the methods of reason and the principles of tolerance, compromise, and the negotiations of difference can be achieved.

It is obvious that if we want to have a Neutral State, a Complete Separation of any Belief/Church and State is needed.

Rules:

§1. Any effort to impose an exclusive conception of Truth, Piety, Virtue, or Justice upon the whole of society is a violation of free inquiry, thus being illegal.

§2. Clerical authorities are not permitted to legislate their own parochial views - whether moral, philosophical, political, educational, or social - for the rest of society.

§3. Tax revenues will not be exacted for the benefit or support of sectarian religious institutions.

§4. church properties share in the burden of public revenues and will not be exempt from taxation.

§5. Compulsory religious oaths and prayers in public institutions (political or educational) are a violation of the separation principle.

§6. Acknowledging that ethics is an autonomous field of inquiry, that ethical judgments can be formulated independently of revealed religion, and that human beings can cultivate practical reason and wisdom and, by its application, achieve lives of virtue and excellence.

§7. Denying that morality needs to be deduced from religious belief or that those who do not espouse a religious doctrine are immoral.

§8. Believing that ethical conduct is, or should be, judged by critical reason, and their goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals, capable of making their own choices in life based upon an understanding of human behavior.

§9. Supporting moral education in the schools that is designed to develop an appreciation for moral virtues, intelligence, and the building of character.

§10. it is immoral to baptize infants, to confirm adolescents, or to impose a religious creed on young people before they are able to consent. Although children should learn about the history of religious moral practices, these young minds should not be indoctrinated in a faith before they are mature enough to evaluate the merits for themselves.
______________________


What do you think ?
Improvements ? Suggestions ? Comments/Criticism ?

You know, I had a whole ranty thing, but I don't care. This is illegal for multiple reasons, including ideological ban and contradiction of Representation in Taxation, but plagiarism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration) (it's snipped from specific sections, rather than just copied verbatim, but little in the wording of this proposal is original) is easily the shittiest.

The UN is intended for international law, not your - or rather, someone else's, which you have stolen - philosophical essays.

You know, I had a whole ranty thing, but I don't care. This is illegal for multiple reasons, including ideological ban and contradiction of Representation in Taxation, but plagiarism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration) (it's snipped from specific sections, rather than just copied verbatim, but little in the wording of this proposal is original) is easily the shittiest.

The UN is intended for international law, not your - or rather, someone else's, which you have stolen - philosophical essays.

Ouch.

Ouch.

Well they did ask for criticism.

I echo everything that QoD states. Not a good resolution.


Nigel S Youlkin
United Nations Ambassador At Large
The United State of Philimbesi

Hirota is populated by a majority of aethists, and it will come to no suprise to some amongst these halls that a portion of this strikes a chord with my government and nations ethos.

I don't think it's illegal (apart from this would probably eliminate or at least hamper theocratic governments), but you could have come up with something original. Use this as a starting point if you are determined to continue down this path, but it is a path which is certainly not going to be an easy one.

More fundamentally, I don't see which category this is suited for - and if it doesn't fit any of the existing categories, then it's going to be illegal right there before you go any further.

You know, I had a whole ranty thing, but I don't care. This is illegal for multiple reasons, including ideological ban and contradiction of Representation in Taxation, but plagiarism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration) (it's snipped from specific sections, rather than just copied verbatim, but little in the wording of this proposal is original) is easily the shittiest.

The UN is intended for international law, not your - or rather, someone else's, which you have stolen - philosophical essays.

I have not stolen, but yes, I did copy alot of it. It was 4 am and I'm lazy (why say it with my words if someone else has said it better ?)
Anyways... It's a draft, so changes are going to be made, and if neccesary rewritten so that there is no 'plagiarism'.

I searched if there was anything against my proposal before but didn't find anything. I also don't see 'Representation in Taxation', could you point it to me ? :)

The proposal is simple, seperating church and state and not funding any religion with tax money.

Is that illegal ? I don't see how, maybe you could clarify that. ;)

It doesn't seem illegal in real life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Secular_Humanist_Declaration#Signatories), although I might have twisted the thing so badly that my proposal is.

The Republic of Diranadium presents its compliments to the members discussing this proposed resolution.

This resolution has been considered thoroughly by various policy committees within our decision-making structures.

The outcome of these deliberations is that the Republic of Diranadium will not support this proposed resolution for the following reasons.

1. The proposed measure is objectionable in principle, and is itself an unwarranted and unnecessary intereference with freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

2. The proposed measure is inconsistent with UNR26, whose principles the Republic of Diranadium broadly supports (though it considers that its own domestic Bill of Rights provides a better basis for protecting the rights there ennumerated.)

3. The proposed measure is impractical and incapable of being implemented effectively. The so-called "rules" 6, 7, 8, and 9 are not rules at all. They are more appropriate, if at all, for inclusion in the preamble of such a resolution. They contain no operative clause, such as to require or enable a state to implement them.

4. More fundamentally, the proposed resolution is inherently contradictory, and both philosophically and empistemologically incoherent. The proposed resolution itself actually propounds a belief of sorts. Therefore implementation of the resolution would be inconsistent with its own provisions.

Yours etc.

Juscogens Diplomatus
Ambassador to the United Nations

First off, the title NEEDS to be changed, personally when I think of a neutral nation, I think of something along the lines of Switzerland i.e. a nation which stays out of wars.
I have not stolen, but yes, I did copy alot of it. It was 4 am and I'm lazy (why say it with my words if someone else has said it better ?)
Anyways... It's a draft, so changes are going to be made, and if neccesary rewritten so that there is no 'plagiarism'.OOC: Rewriting it might be a good idea as the mods tend to take a dim view on plagiarism

I searched if there was anything against my proposal before but didn't find anything. I also don't see 'Representation in Taxation', could you point it to me ? :)Here you go, Representation in Taxation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9875424&postcount=129).

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I have not stolen, but yes, I did copy alot of it. It was 4 am and I'm lazy (why say it with my words if someone else has said it better ?)
Possibly because saying it in someone else's words is plagiarism?

Anyways... It's a draft, so changes are going to be made, and if neccesary rewritten so that there is no 'plagiarism'.
A nice argument, one which would have been a whole lot more convincing if you hadn't submitted it already (and had it deleted for its multiple illegalities).

The proposal is simple, seperating church and state and not funding any religion with tax money.
Which is a ban on the ideology of theocracy, or government by religious elite. As an atheist I'd be all for that, but the UN rules strictly forbid banning ideologies.

and what IS a theocratic state ?
One that follows the Bible to be literal ?
If so that would mean it would kill people for working on sunday even if they're poor and need the money.

Exodus 35:1-3 Moses assembled the whole Israelite community and said to them, “These are the things the LORD has commanded you to do: For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day.”

That would also mean there is no healthcare on sunday because nobody can work on Sunday. O.o

If there is (or would be) a proposal against murder of citizens that work on Sabbath day, would that also be ideologic ?

if not literal than what ? How is it still theocratic ? :D
Please explain.

Here you go, the dictionary definition of theocracy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theocracy).

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

As a nation of Christians, and being a Christian myself, I find this proposal downright offensive. Despite the fact that it'd never pass anyway, if the main idea is to separate church and state, which is and ideological ban. So, no. Never.

and what IS a theocratic state ?
One that follows the Bible to be literal ?
If so that would mean it would kill people for working on sunday even if they're poor and need the money.

Well, yeah, they could. If they weren't in the UN. QED.

That would also mean there is no healthcare on sunday because nobody can work on Sunday. O.o

Well, perhaps, but not in most modern societies.

if not literal than what ? How is it still theocratic ?
Please explain.

Well, Mr. Flibble posted the definition of a theocracy. If you want a good example from here in the UN, you should go see The Eternal Kawaii.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

As a nation of Christians, and being a Christian myself, I find this proposal downright offensive.

If you find that offensive, just consider my possition.

Millions of people are convinced I will burn in a hell for all eternity.

Right, that's not offensive....

anyway, you made your point. It's illegal. Case closed I guess. :)

The People's Republic of Rhina does not approve of this act for the following reasons.

1. It is not the place of the government to decide what people should believe in. It is merely our place to run the country, enforce the laws, and generally make sure that civilization as we know it doesn't crumble.

2. On that note, provided a religion or faith has no practices or rituals actually going against the law, there is no reason it should not continue on.

3. Religion and faith have a way of uplifting the people in times of crisis, and restricting their abilities to do this is asking for trouble.

4. Though separation of church and state is important, it is not as all-important as the bill makes it out to be. It is perfectly acceptable to allow your religious views to influence political decisions, as they only have the same chance of being accepted as anyone else's views.

5. It has always been the responsibility of the parent or parents to guide their children along any path of life that they see fit. It is the later choice of the child to decide if s/he wants to continue practicing their parents' beliefs.

A small personal comment on that note, I was raised Christian but am now Athiest, and it was actually thanks to Christianity itself that I made the switch.

For these reasons, The People's Republic of Rhina disapproves of this act.

If you find that offensive, just consider my possition.

Millions of people are convinced I will burn in a hell for all eternity.

So you're blaming me for your own lack of initiative? Typical.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Just flair him and be done with it.

Respectfully,
The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III, KCMC, CC
Senior Ambassador
Permanent Representative to the United Nations
The Royal Federation of the Genoshan Isles

Shouldn't a country decide for itself whether church and state are separate or not? We shouldn't be telling countries to change their structure of government. Thats their decision don't you think?

Shouldn't a country decide for itself whether church and state are separate or not? We shouldn't be telling countries to change their structure of government. Thats their decision don't you think?

Exactly the reason why ideological bans are illegal, and thus also the resolution here discussed.

and exactly the reason why I said 'case closed' :)

1. It is not the place of the government to decide what people should believe in. It is merely our place to run the country, enforce the laws, and generally make sure that civilization as we know it doesn't crumble. - Rhina

The act does no such thing. I don't see where you get that idea.

2. On that note, provided a religion or faith has no practices or rituals actually going against the law, there is no reason it should not continue on.

Yup, you're right. Except that it is an attack on reason to belief something on blind faith.

3. Religion and faith have a way of uplifting the people in times of crisis, and restricting their abilities to do this is asking for trouble.
Simply not giving tax funds to churches and banning theocracies does not bad religion neither does it ban faith.

4. Though separation of church and state is important, it is not as all-important as the bill makes it out to be. It is perfectly acceptable to allow your religious views to influence political decisions, as they only have the same chance of being accepted as anyone else's views.

my opinion: I do not think a blind faith in anything should influence anyone's views, but I do believe that everyone's views are influenced by stuff, but that stuff can be explained with things called 'reasons', and a religious view cannot. (unless you can show me that religion can be reasoned)
If I ask, for example, "Why do you think abortion should be illegal?", and a politician answering:
'Because I find it immoral and consider an unborn child as a human being' the underlined is a reason which you can argue with.
another politician answering:
'Because God says so in The Holy Text', that cannot be reasoned.

5. It has always been the responsibility of the parent or parents to guide their children along any path of life that they see fit. It is the later choice of the child to decide if s/he wants to continue practicing their parents' beliefs.
Very true, indeed.
I wonder what your opinion is on parents,teachers and priests deliberately disinforming or misinforming a child (lying about facts or telling stuff out of ignorance) just because they want to keep safe their beliefs. (like for example, saying the earth is flat)

A small personal comment on that note, I was raised Christian but am now Athiest, and it was actually thanks to Christianity itself that I made the switch.
That is ofcours personal and does not apply to everyone or even anyone else. ;)

Akimonad: I never blamed you for lacking initiative and I'd like to know where you get that idea. :D
Criticism isn't offensive, however you might find it so. I did not insult you or used any hate speech.

Religion is/used to be something believed in from blind faith/ without reason. (Guy 1:'why do you believe it is the truth?' Guy 2: 'Because I just have FAITH in it to be true.')

In my honest opinion, I consider belief from blind faith dangerous. What else will they believe on blind faith?
If they're going to believe something on blind faith, meaning without reasons to believe in it, that means they could/will also believe people wearing red boots should be murdered on blind faith, without reasons.

But not so recently, religious people in the world have stopped believing trough faith, and started disinforming people about facts in support for their beliefs. (Creationism is a product of this)

A misinformed person is more likely to become immoral.

But not so recently, religious people in the world have stopped believing trough faith, and started disinforming people about facts in support for their beliefs. (Creationism is a product of this)

Can I suggest locking this thread before the religious flamewar hots up?