NationStates Jolt Archive

The Grand Duchy of Elven Realm

8 October

United Nations members


Honorable delegats,
The Grand Duchy of Elven Realm would like to start a new discussion which
would hopefully end with a new proposal for a resolution.
Namely, it may have recently been observed that one of the key factors
causing disturbances and conflicts around the world is the lack o a border
line between politics and religion. We would thus suggest the UN members
to oblige to keep a clear division of the both matters when organising
functioning of each country.
We feel that such division, with all the freedoms concerning religious
believes, will prevent any religious fanatics from trying to influence their
nations in order to incite revolts and civil or international military conflicts.


The Grand Duke of Elven Realm

I am in total agreement with the sentiment expressed (separation of church & state). However, I believe such a resolution would impose beliefs on nations and would have a very difficult time working around resolution rules about banning idealologies.

Frege Gott, RenCoL -Logic

http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/674/christophebocobnd6.jpg

Although Ariddia is a fully secular State (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Religion_in_Ariddia), we see no justification for imposing secularism on other countries. There may be situations in which a blurring of Church and government is fully justifiable due to local history, customs and preferences.

In short, my delegation does not believe this issue warrants international legislation or the imposition of international sameness.

I would, however, like to thank the honourable representative of Elven Realm for bringing this suggestion to the General Assembly.


Christophe Boco (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christophe_Boco),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

However, I believe such a resolution would impose beliefs on nations and would have a very difficult time working around resolution rules about banning idealologies.

Frege Gott, RenCoL -Logic



We do not think so, as looking at this from that point of view could mean no new resolutions in the UN!!! Simply because 90% of them are around believes and ideologies, either environmental, political, economical or like in this case - religious.
In addition, we woudl like to thank for the first supporting voice.

"As the Shazbotdom Empire is secular, we feel that this issue isn't something that the United Nation should get itself involved in, and should fall more under National Soverignty than anything else."

"In this case, we will most likely vote Against this if it ever does come to a vote in the General Assembly. Although the deligation from Elven Realms does pose a good point, too many nations used 'Religion' to justify the mass murder of innocents."

Although the deligation from Elven Realms does pose a good point, too many nations used 'Religion' to justify the mass murder of innocents."


EXACTLY!!! That is the reason for supporting our proposal, as Elven Realm would like to bring such cases to an end...

"Yes, but the estemed Deligation from Elven Realm must realize that if something like this passes, a vast majority of those UN members, especially the NatSov's will either resign, or write up a repeal of the resolution. This type of thing isn't something that the UN should get itself involved in."

Although the deligation from Elven Realms does pose a good point, too many nations used 'Religion' to justify the mass murder of innocents."

OOC: Actually, no, they don't. (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Universal_Bill_of_Rights) At least, members of the UN don't. And we can't affect non-members, so...

While I personally tend to agree that religion causes more problems than it solves, my government does not feel quite the same way. Nor does my government feel that there is a justification for interfering with the religious and political structure of member states, simply because some may feel that religion can have an undue influence on politics. We would be opposed.

Ikir Askanabath, Acting Ambassador

As a nation where religious practice and government administration are almost inextricably entwined, to no detriment of our citizens, the implication that our theocratic institutions are somehow dangerous is frankly offensive and cruel.

There are meaningful ways in which religion and national government coincide for the benefit of its people. Aatem Nal, the largest religion in Snefaldia, has almost single-handedly established, organized, and developed Snefaldia's cultural heritage, education system, and set up the largest system of libraries known to us.

Banning such mixing of religion and state may be in some cases warranted, but as a a blanket means it harms all right-minded nations.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens
Holy Minister

As a nation where religious practice and government administration are almost inextricably entwined, to no great detriment of our citizens, the implication that our theocratic institutions are somehow dangerous is frankly offensive and cruel.

We naturally did not intend to offeend any nation that wisely and safely joins the two notions of a state and religion. We are only aiming at putting the end to systems where religius fanatics govern a country only through a religious ideology and especialy where they use it as an excuse for starting violence and conflicts...
A healthy mixing of both matters is nothing we would like to oppose.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised.

Our nation has seen this proposal come up in the General Assembly several times in the past, and so my job is much easier--I only need to repeat to the esteemed representative from the Elven Realm the question we've posed when it's come up before:

In the case of our nation, where the Church of the Eternal Kawaii IS the state, how does the esteemed representative suggest we separate the two?

Oh, my Goddess, you must be kidding me.

The Sacred Kingdom of Karianis is, in every way, a religious state. We are ruled directly by the decree of the Great Goddess, whose will is made manifest through the Queen, as Her direct representative. The very idea of separating church and state in Karianis is unthinkable.

If this were to become a proposal, we would be committed to fighting it tooth and nail. Were such a proposal to pass, we'd be forced to resign from the UN, since there is not the slightest chance we would permit a mortal law to interfere with divine guidance.

Please, rethink your stance on this matter. Our faith is a peaceful one, if strict. We do not seek to impose it on peoples outside our nation, only require that those living within Karianis be adherents of our church. The 'problems' that you see simply do not exist within my country.

I simply pray Her Divine Majesty, the Queen, doesn't hear about this. I don't want to have to listen to her ranting for half the night again.

Serifina Karin
Ambassador to the United Nations
Sacred Kingdom of Karianis

May I add our voice to that of Karianis and the Church of the Eternal Kawaii:

The Elven Realm, in seeking to put an "end to systems where religius fanatics govern a country only through a religious ideology and especialy where they use it as an excuse for starting violence and conflicts..." has dared to propose the banning of any government founded on religious grounds. Call us fanatics if you will but do not deny us the right to uphold the Truth and enshrine it in Law.

How can wrongs such as crime, povery and helplessness be corrected without the force of Divine Justice meted out by the State?

Araneus
Ambassador to the UN
Serene Rebulic of Sanctus Aequitas

Gobbannium has somewhat relaxed the links between Strict Druidism and government over the centuries, and as such has no great objection to the concepts being voiced by the the representative from the Elven Realm. Unfortunately it is our opinion that no resolution such as the Grand Duke seeks can legally be framed, since he desires to outlaw theocracy. This being a quite unambigious ideological ban, it cannot be legal.

[OOC: I'm almost certain this would violate the "no ideological bans" rule. And isn't the phrase "separation of church and state"? The fake phrase, I mean, coined by Jefferson, who had about as much to do with crafting U.S. constitutional law as Minnie Mouse?]

The Federal Republic, a secular government in every sense of the word, would most vociferously oppose this proposal. We wouldn't prescribe to this false notion that most world conflicts arise form a lack of separation of church and state, either. A secular dictatorship can trample upon human rights and dignity and threaten its neighbors just as surely as a theocratic one can [OOC read: Nazi Germany, Red China, USSR, the Viet Cong, North Korea, Saddam Hussein -- whoops! how'd that one get in there?]. And this coming from a nation that waged war against a theocratic regime to quell its nuclear ambitions!

A wise person once said, the "line of separation" between church and state isn't there to protect people from religion; it's there to protect people from the government. Violence and persecution in the name of God has always required a state agent to function properly. So go after the state; that's where you'll find your problem.

~Cdr. Chiang

Having noticed that our proposal has been in part wrongly interpreted and not receiving any support from any of the nations, we have decided to postpone the submitting of the proposal.
However, the ministers of The Elven Realm are going to rediscuss the issue, as we still believe that the UN should oppose when a memebr nation violates basic freedoms of its inhabbitants.
When the UN does not stand against the perspective that "We do not seek to impose it (religion) on peoples outside our nation, only require that those living within Karianis be adherents of our church. The 'problems' that you see simply do not exist within my country." we are asking the honorable assembly:

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE UNITED NATIONS, if not fighting for peace and basic freedoms of all the citizens of the UN member states? (by fighting we naturaly do not mean any military steps, simply debates and talkes with such nations aiming at the situation change)

We leave the question open...


signed: The Grand Duke of Elven Realm

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE UNITED NATIONS, if not fighting for peace and basic freedoms of all the citizens of the UN member states? (by fighting we naturaly do not mean any military steps, simply debates and talkes with such nations aiming at the situation change)

With this, you imply that the citizens of Karianis have no rights. That is simply no true. The citizens in my country have many rights. We simply require that anyone living in Karianis be a member of our faith. Those who do not wish to are asked to leave, and are, in fact, given a small grant to help them start in a different country.

No, government officials are not elected. And no, we do not have the precious 'freedom of religion' that so many love. Neither of these things is necessary when you are ruled by a divine being. You may not believe this is the case, however, it is very much the truth, and we have no intention of changing our government to suit the ideals of someone else who has never even delved into our nation's history. Please do not presume that your way is the 'one true way' that all nations should follow. It is not. There are as many different ways as there are nations in this universe.

Serifina Karin

Sonnveld would full-heartedly support this legislation provided:

That it, indeed, doesn't ban belief systems, nor promote any belief system (spiritual or secular) above any other.

Separation of church and state doesn't automatically connote the banning of beliefs. Church and state can operate in parallel tracks, without merging.

Think dovetails, not grey areas.

Church and state can operate in parallel tracks, without merging. Yes they can. But the reverse is also true, that they can operate on the same track, where the church IS the state. This DOES ban that possibility, which we define as "Theocracy". That counts as an ideological ban, which is not permitted.

Think dovetails, not grey areas.The point is that we don't have to think about it the same way you do. For some people, "black" and "white" are the only necessary choices, and the UN needs to respect that.

The Republic of Nacratem, would like to add, though it supports relligion-state segregation, it does NOT support the banning of relligion, though it does in the case of extremeist relligious factions.

The Republic of Nacratem, would like to voice its support in the issue of The Grand Duchy of Elven Realm's proposal, we believe this is an important idea that is essential to the un-baised development of all nations. We would like to express our support for the idea to propose egislation for state-relligion segregation.

The Federation of Freewill and Isolation believes in the individual belief of others. We do not include or let religion influence our ability to govern. I believe that we would be having a standard of law rather than religion. While we do respect everyone's individual preference for their choice of deity. I must state that religion and government should not govern together.

We are grandly delighted with all the latest support from the honorable delegates above. We therefore are sure, that indeed such resolution sure is needed, however we still need some more time to prepare it, as we would not like it to be misundesrtood as a cry against religion, but only the suggestion of the state-religion segregation and respect and tolerance of other religions within each UN member nation, so that everybody had a free choice of what they believe in...

I would like to assure the honorable delegate from the Elven Realms that any such resolution would be ignored within Karianis. It is a primary belief of our people that purity must be maintained within our nation, and that allowing other faiths, beliefs, religions, et cetera, into our nation, would sully that purity.

And any attempt to separate church and state at all will be flatly illegal by the United Nation's rules. As has been stated, that would fall under the 'ideological ban' rule.

Please, I ask on the behalf of my nation, and all the other nations governed by their religion, that you leave off this crusade of yours. Perhaps in your nation and cities, religion failed as the state. In ours, it has not, and we would prefer to continue along our own paths through history.

Serifina Karin

I have yet to hear a substantial reason yet offered as to why we would need such a resolution as this. The major argument of its supporters seems to be "we don't like theocracies waaaah".

If you don't like religion being part of your government, then fine...don't let religion be a part of your government. We did just that in Altanar, and it seems to work fine for us. That being said, do we think our choice concerning religion's role in government should be forcibly imposed on every single UN member? By the seven hells, we most certainly don't, and that's why we're still opposed to this imperialistic piece of holy crap.

I also can't help but wonder: how would the states arguing in favor of this proposal feel if the shoe was on the other foot...if states such as Karianis, Sanctus Aequitas and The Eternal Kawaii decided to submit a resolution mandating that all UN members become theocratic states? Ponder that for a while, and you might begin to see why while this proposal may sound right to you, it is in fact so very wrong.

Ikir Askanabath, Acting Ambassador

And any attempt to separate church and state at all will be flatly illegal by the United Nation's rules. As has been stated, that would fall under the 'ideological ban' rule.

Honorable delegates,
The Grand Duchy of Elven Realm do not wish to ban any ideology!!! We only believe that the UN should aim at providing its citizens with basic human rights.

Furtehrmore, what do you all mean by saying "ideology"? If one nation proclaimed that their religion tells them to nuke the whole planet, teh UN would not have the right to oppose it, as it would be "an ideological ban rule"?

Naturally, we are aware that the above example is MUCH exaggerated, however it only aims at provoking to think about "ideologies"...

To sum up, by introducing our proposal we mean the UN assembly to take a closer look if no UN nation suffers because of a religiously-driven government that imposes its religion on every citizen under the threat of exhile from the country, brutal intoletance or even something worse... THAT IS ALL.
We do NOT will to ban any religion or expel any religiously-governed country from the UN that do not break any freedoms nor emposes its religion on its citizens by force...

Honorable delegates,
The Grand Duchy of Elven Realm do not wish to ban any ideology!!! We only believe that the UN should aim at providing its citizens with basic human rights.

<snip>

We do NOT will to ban any religion or expel any religiously-governed country from the UN that do not break any freedoms nor emposes its religion on its citizens by force...

You're making two overly sweeping assumptions that are the entire basis for your misguided effort. One, you're automatically assuming all theocracies violate basic human rights. Two, you're assuming that all theocracies impose the chosen religion upon their citizens by force. Can you offer anything resembling proof that those assumptions are true? If you can't, then there's no reason at all to support your proposal.

Ikir Askanabath, Acting Ambassador

One, you're automatically assuming all theocracies violate basic human rights.

Honorable ambasador of Altnar shoud read more carefully. Where do we state that "ALL" religiously-governed nations are to be inspected by the UN???
Has the honorable delegate read the last paragraph of our last post to the very end? It CLEARLY states that we would like the UN to take a closer look at specific counries where specific situations take place! How many times more will we have to repeat that?



As far as proofs of disturbing situations concernig the matter, the best would be refugees from such countries who, seeking freedoms and help, found new home in many other nations, among which Elven Realm is not an exception..

I must honestly say that I still do not understand exactly what you are proposing since by your own words:

it may have recently been observed that one of the key factors
causing disturbances and conflicts around the world is the lack o a border
line between politics and religion. We would thus suggest the UN members
to oblige to keep a clear division of the both matters when organising
functioning of each country

-Ok, so this is a suggestion to mandate the separation of church and state

A healthy mixing of both matters is nothing we would like to oppose.

-Oh, so it really isnt..

...however we still need some more time to prepare it, as we would not like it to be misundesrtood as a cry against religion, but only the suggestion of the state-religion segregation and respect and tolerance of other religions within each UN member natio

-Ok, so in fact it is...

To sum up, by introducing our proposal we mean the UN assembly to take a closer look if no UN nation suffers because of a religiously-driven government that imposes its religion on every citizen under the threat of exhile from the country, brutal intoletance or even something worse... THAT IS ALL.

We do NOT will to ban any religion or expel any religiously-governed country from the UN that do not break any freedoms nor emposes its religion on its citizens by force...

-Oh, I guess it really wasn't

I would kindly suggest the good ambassador from the Elven Realm to post a more clear proposal and to give serious consideration to the issue of ideological bans.

The UN cannot ban theocracies, nor any ideology, but it can restrict them as to make them respect certain human and civil rights. A clear example of this would be UNR#26 The Universal Bill of Rights. If this is the goal of the proposal, I would also suggest the good ambassador to think alog these lines. What human rights could be in peril under a theocratic government? How can the UN protect them?

I would kindly suggest the good ambassador from the Elven Realm to post a more clear proposal and to give serious consideration to the issue of ideological bans.

The UN cannot ban theocracies, nor any ideology, but it can restrict them as to make them respect certain human and civil rights.


We would like to stress that we have not introduced any formal proposal yet! We have only started a debate aiming at getting to know varied perspectives before forming a specific proposal and therefore Your words that "I would kindly suggest the good ambassador from the Elven Realm to post a more clear proposal" are indeed justified, although not necesseary at that moment, since no proposal has been sugetsed by Elven Realm.
In a short while we will prepare a formal document and we woudl be very grateful for any suggestions as to the specific points of the resoltions, as we could not ask for more than to introduce a proposal made and discussed not only by our nation, but by a wider scope of involved parties.

The problem is that you seem to keep wavering back and forth between the points you would like to support. Sometimes you seem to support just the idea of making sure all citizens have basic rights in theocratic nations, other times, you want to ban theocracies entirely.

I don't see this as worth a proposal or a resolution on all it's own, however. Theocracies do not inherently mean that citizens have no rights. We do insist that all citizens be members of our faith, but since we even give those who cannot adhere to that restriction a grant to help them move to another country, I don't see what the problem is.

I must ask that you step back and consider for a moment this single truth - that there is no one, true way. Just because you believe that certain things should be one way does not mean everyone else should march in lock-step with you. I know that I, and my country, certainly will not.

Serifina Karin

While we respect the intention to secure certain rights for the individuals of all nations it is our position that the people of Roseariea must look upon this proposal as an unjust restriction upon our belief in each nation's right to self determination.

As a nation which enjoys a relatively high degree of separation between faith and state we feel our voice can serve as an objective objection to this needless enforcement against nation's sovereignty as it is based on the flawed presupposition that all theocracies are inherently unjust, an assumption our nation is unprepared to support.

Respectfully,

- Gordon Tills, acting ambassador

We must concur with Ambassador Fairchild that considerably more clarity is required in what the delegation from the Elven Realm is suggesting might be proposed. The Grand Duke's initial statements seemed to be entirely clear that a blanket ban of theocracies -- which is what the dividing of church and state would unquestionably achieve -- was his desired state of affairs. Subsequent recantings, restatements and revisions have served only to muddy the waters. Perhaps clarity would be best served if the honoured ambassador were to use the formal and precise language of proposals to be specific about his intent?

To sum up, by introducing our proposal we mean the UN assembly to take a closer look if no UN nation suffers because of a religiously-driven government that imposes its religion on every citizen under the threat of exhile from the country, brutal intoletance or even something worse... THAT IS ALL.

It is clear that the esteemed representative from the Elven Realm is unfamiliar with the mechanics of theocratic governance. In our nation, adherence to the Church of the Eternal Kawaii is a necessary and sufficient condition for citizenship and all the rights thereto appended. It is the very definitive concept of our nation, the source of our peoples' identity. One can no more impose the Church of the Eternal Kawaii upon a Kawaiian any more than one can impose warm-bloodedness upon a mammal.

Hirota opposes, even though we are broadly atheist as a nation.

The Principality of Machina Haruspex officially protests this attempt at creating chaos within it's borders. Our style of government is very religious and such a law would create instant havoc for our citizenry's way of life.

The United Nations:


CALL ON the member states to assure their citizens with basic religious freedoms concerning the choice and cultivating of their faith unless the religion calls openly to violence
CALL ON the member states not to impose any pressure and persecutions on their citizens if their religion varies from the nation’s dominant religion
CALL ON the member states’ authorities to stand against any acts of religious persecutions, discrimination and violence of the religious majority towards minorities
CALL ON the member states’ authorities to represent and look after all their citizens, not only the ones representing the dominant religion
CALL ON that the member states’ governments and representatives to spread religious tolerance no matter of the nation’s dominant religion
SUGGEST that no national bill nor resolution would favor one religion against other religions within a country

Forgive me, but have you listened to a word that I, or my Kawaiian colleague have said? In our nations, the church literally is the state, and to be members of our respective nations, one must be a member of our faiths. This is a necessary part of our nations. Why do you insist that other religions be allowed in? Do you want to destroy Karianis? Because that is precisely what you are trying to do.

The Sacred Kingdom of Karianis is a pure place, something we take great pains to protect. If we are forced to allow other religions amongst our citizens, it will only be a short period of time before that purity is lost. We do not discriminate against other religions, we simply don't allow them in. We even provide rather generously for those who can't follow our faith and are forced to leave. A point I've made before and was ignored, I might add.

Why do you feel it so very necessary to upset the internal stability of nations such as Karianis? Is your beloved 'Freedom of Religion' such a binding touchstone to you that you must force it upon everyone else?

Serifina Karin

If the citizens of your Nation are happy and none is suffering violance or persecutions than you do not need to worry...

The final suggestion of this proposal is an attempt to undermine the very concept of national religion which would completely undermine the authority of a great many respectable nations within the UN.

You cannot dictate that all nations are to have no national religion anymore than you can dictate that all nations are to have the same national religion.

It is our feeling that this proposal should be soon abandoned and Roseariea will protest it until that day arrives. In our opinion the only worth in this act is in its attempt to prevent outright violence against minority groups, but unfortunately in attempting to do this the act goes too far, does too much, and is an affront to the sovereignty of many good, just nations, as the delegate from Karianis has pointed out.

- Gordon Tills, acting ambassador

The United Nations:


CALL ON the member states to assure their citizens with basic religious freedoms concerning the choice and cultivating of their faith unless the religion calls openly to violence
CALL ON the member states not to impose any pressure and persecutions on their citizens if their religion varies from the nation’s dominant religion
CALL ON the member states’ authorities to stand against any acts of religious persecutions, discrimination and violence of the religious majority towards minorities
CALL ON the member states’ authorities to represent and look after all their citizens, not only the ones representing the dominant religion
CALL ON that the member states’ governments and representatives to spread religious tolerance no matter of the nation’s dominant religion
SUGGEST that no national bill nor resolution would favor one religion against other religions within a country

You're trapped between a rock and a hard place. That draft has no mandating clause, and therefore effectively does nothing. Any country remains free to violate its spirit.

Conversely, if you were to introduce mandating clauses, that would constitute an intolerable intrusion into the government systems of countries such as Karianis.

The only way to salvage this might be to keep non-binding suggestions on seperation of Church and State, coupled with mandating clauses forbidding religious persecution. But that would probably duplicate existing resolutions (I haven't checked).


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The only way to salvage this might be to keep non-binding suggestions on seperation of Church and State, coupled with mandating clauses forbidding religious persecution.

Or you could just pass laws as strict as you want in your own country, and not try to force your interpretation of religious behavior on everyone else.

If the citizens of your Nation are happy and none is suffering violance or persecutions than you do not need to worry...
"Just worship like we tell you, and you'll be ok." That's how it reads, Elven Realm.

As a nation whose national polices do not include any religious restrictions of any sort, and whose general policies lean towards libertarianism, this sounds to us like 1984-ish Big Brotherism. While we're in no danger of falling into theocracy, we find the premise behind this proposal entirely offensive to our rights to chose our own direction.

Whether it's the Church of Money, the Church of Human Rights, the Church of Communist Ideals, or the Church of God; every nation has some premise on which to base their highest powers. It doesn't matter how noble your intent may be, it's not YOUR choice.

Frisbeeteria will fight this one all the way to the last delegate vote. Opposed.

MJ Donovan, CEO Emeritus
The Conglomerated Oligarchical States of Frisbeeteria

Whether it's the Church of Money, the Church of Human Rights, the Church of Communist Ideals, or the Church of God; every nation has some premise on which to base their highest powers. It doesn't matter how noble your intent may be, it's not YOUR choice.[/I]

That is simply NOT true! Not every nation has the right to choose their religion, but EVERY SINGLE PERSON WITHIN EACH NATION! This is the point that Elven Realm is trying to point out. And we regret that the above ambasadors do not think so and desire to inpose their believes on the whole nation, regardless of its indyvidual citizens.

"We do not discriminate against other religions, we simply don't allow them in."

As someone has said: "We do not want to start a war with them, we just think they should be erased from the maps"


The Grand Duchy of Elven Realm would like to express its surprise and shock concerning so much fear and intolerance towards relgions different than the dominant. We will however not step back, as the current discussion has only proved how intolerant and oppresive some governments might be when a citizen chooses another religion that is not perceived as the ONLY ONE by the authorities.
To sum up, as the honorable delegate has noticed:

"It doesn't matter how noble your intent may be, it's not YOUR choice."

Exactly!!! Neither is yours!!! But every single man's!!! That we believe in...


signed: The Grand Duke of The Elven Realm

While this ambassador from the Armed Republic of Hikari no Tenshi may still be green in matters of state and international politics and prefers to remain silent on matters such as this, even one such as myself cannot ignore the blatant disregard for Theocracies that this proposal would force on church-dominated nations. Perhaps a point-by-point analysis would show the Elven Realm's ambassador the error of his ways?

CALL ON the member states to assure their citizens with basic religious freedoms concerning the choice and cultivating of their faith unless the religion calls openly to violence.

The honored representatives of the Kawaiians and the Karianisans have made the point abundantly clear that membership in their church is the sole binding factor in becoming a citizen of their nation. "Freedom" to choose a religion would undermine the very way of life that the citizens of these nations enjoy.

CALL ON the member states not to impose any pressure and persecutions on their citizens if their religion varies from the nation’s dominant religion.

I seem to recall hearing the ambassador from Karianis saying a multitude of times that their government provides generous grants to those who cannot accept their religion for the express purpose of allowing them the freedom to choose any other nation that aligns with their religious or social beliefs. Your nation may even have products of said generosity within its own borders, just as it is possible that some may have chosen mine. They are not pressured to join, just as they are neither persecuted nor prosecuted for denying; they simply aren't welcome.

The Supreme Commander of Hikari no Tenshi.

CALL ON the member states’ authorities to stand against any acts of religious persecutions, discrimination and violence of the religious majority towards minorities.

This point has been addressed many times, including both of my previous arguments.

CALL ON the member states’ authorities to represent and look after all their citizens, not only the ones representing the dominant religion.

Again, when the only condition for citizenship is membership in the national church, which also happens to be the only church, all citizens represent the dominant religion. This point is moot.

CALL ON that the member states’ governments and representatives to spread religious tolerance no matter of the nation’s dominant religion.

From everything I have heard, the nations represented by the ambassadors from the Kawaii and the Karianis are incredibly tolerant of religions other than theirs. They do not say that their citizens must worship their religion, they only state that citizenship is only granted to those who do. There is no persecution or negative repercussion for those who do not accept the state's religion.

SUGGEST that no national bill nor resolution would favor one religion against other religions within a country.

Again, you have overlooked that there is only one religion in many, if not all, theocracies. For non-theocratic nations, this would have no negative effects, but for those whose church is the state, this proposal effectively overthrows their government and subsequently their whole way of life.

Should this proposal make it to vote, the AR of HnT shall respond with a firm Nay. Leave it to the individual nations to decide; the UN has neither the need nor the right to decide what sort of governing body controls nations that fall under its wings. This proposal does exactly what it is supposed to protect against: it forces your beliefs on others and persecutes those with beliefs that differ from your own.

Get off your high-horse, Elven, and accept that this thing will either fail as a proposal, at vote, or get repealed upon approval.

Or you could just pass laws as strict as you want in your own country, and not try to force your interpretation of religious behavior on everyone else.


If you've been paying attention, you'll notice that is what I've been saying from the start. I'm pointing out how the honourable delegation of Elven Realm may wish to try and salvage it, not saying that I support it. Whatever the final version of the draft, there is no way my country will vote in favour.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

[QUOTE=Hikari no Tenshi;13131475]The honored representatives of the Kawaiians and the Karianisans have made the point abundantly clear that membership in their church is the sole binding factor in becoming a citizen of their nation. "Freedom" to choose a religion would undermine the very way of life that the citizens of these nations enjoy.

It is your opinion that they all enjoy it...

I seem to recall hearing the ambassador from Karianis saying a multitude of times that their government provides generous grants to those who cannot accept their religion for the express purpose of allowing them the freedom to choose any other nation that aligns with their religious or social beliefs. Your nation may even have products of said generosity within its own borders, just as it is possible that some may have chosen mine. They are not pressured to join, just as they are neither persecuted nor prosecuted for denying; they simply aren't welcome.

Yes, we have heard that. However, there are hundreds of theocracies where the above warmhearted help provided for the expelled citizens is not the case

Again, when the only condition for citizenship is membership in the national church, which also happens to be the only church, all citizens represent the dominant religion.[I]

And that is what we oppose = lack of religious tolerance

[I]From everything I have heard, the nations represented by the ambassadors from the Kawaii and the Karianis are incredibly tolerant of religions other than theirs. They do not say that their citizens must worship their religion, they only state that citizenship is only granted to those who do. There is no persecution or negative repercussion for those who do not accept the state's religion.

Again, your nation is one of MANY theocracies and no everywhere people are provided with such "luxuries"

Allow me first to thank the ambassadors who've argued on my behalf, and the behalf of other nations like my own. Your assistance is much welcomed.

And that is what we oppose = lack of religious tolerance

This, I feel, is the real center of the problem. You believe that religious tolerance should be a cornerstone of every nation, or rather, the entire civilized world. However, this simply isn't the case. As we've tried to explain, there are nations, mostly theocracies such as my own Karianis, or that of the Kawaiians, where religious tolerance simply isn't possible.

Perhaps, instead of envisioning these nations as countries, perhaps you might envision them as overly-large churches. I would not expect a Christian to be pleased were I to invade his church and start preaching of the Great Goddess. Nor would I expect him to allow it. Why would the reverse be true?

The proposal has been submitted...

The Proposal has been deleted.

A Proposal with absolutely no action clauses is hardly "Significant".

I love when mods play a game and rule it at the same time. Although a great number of players proved max barry proposal to be illegal you have not delete it!!! And this one, althouh it DOES NOT BREAK ANY RULE, is deleted, just becaues you do not liek it. It is pathetic... Realy deeply pathetic...

THUS, I AM GOING TO TO SUBMIT IT ONE MORE TIME, AND DEMAND SOME FAIR TREATMENT FROM THE MODS' SIDE! UNLESS THE PROPOSAL GETS A NUMBER OF APPROVALS TILL, LET'S SAY, FRIDAY, YUO MAY DELETE IT. BUT THE FACT THAT YOU DO NOT LIKE IT IS NOT ENOUGH!!!

OOC: I'm not a mod, but:

Although a great number of players proved max barry proposal to be illegal you have not delete it!!!


As the mods have explained, that was a mistake on their part, an oversight, not a deliberate decision.


And this one, althouh it DOES NOT BREAK ANY RULE,


Yes, it does. It's illegal to submit a proposal categorised as "significant" when it has no mandating clauses.

UNLESS THE PROPOSAL GETS A NUMBER OF APPROVALS TILL, LET'S SAY, FRIDAY, YUO MAY DELETE IT.
Thanks for the permission, but we don't really need it. You were told that "Significant" was too strong, so you resubmitted it as "Strong". I believe that raising it to the highest level after being told that it didn't meet the qualifications for the middle level is ample justification.

Also, you don't get until Friday. Legal proposals get 3-4 days. Illegal proposals get removed when we see them.

BUT THE FACT THAT YOU DO NOT LIKE IT IS NOT ENOUGH!!!

No, but the fact that it's got a rules violation is plenty.

I really have to ask, given that we have UNR "The Universal Bill of Rights", wich says:

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

Do we really need to have another resolution that guarantees the same rights?

<ooc>wouldn't it be illegal for duplicating</ooc>

Bearing in mind all the fears and lack of understanding and support, even from secular countries, the delegation from The Grand Duchy of Elven Realm have decided to abandon their project concerning the proposal of clearer division of state and religion within the UN memeber states.
We believe, however, that the UN is FAR TOO LENIENT as far as breaking the basic freedoms within the UN member states, which we deeply regret.


Signed: The Grand Duke of Elven Realm

Bearing in mind all the fears and lack of understanding and support, even from secular countries, the delegation from The Grand Duchy of Elven Realm have decided to abandon their project concerning the proposal of clearer division of state and religion within the UN memeber states.Given that it's already been deleted twice, and your response was to scream at the moderators, I think that's a fair course of action.

Their opinion that there was no action clause... I will not comment that anymore as my chicks ache from laughing...
Such language is typical of for example EU resolutions, apparnetly not good enough for the UN...
With this we finish the discussion and we only regret that so many delegates have introduced such malicious remarks concernig such serious matter like basic human rights... but what could we expect from an organisation built of so many undemocratic countries, dictatorships, anarchies and fanatic totalitarisms with no regard of human freedoms...
Thus, let us forget about human rights in the UN, we suggest. Let us focus on resolutions about holidays, common sense etc...

Their opinion that there was no action clause... I will not comment that anymore as my chicks ache from laughing...
Such language is typical of for example EU resolutions, apparnetly not good enough for the UN...

This is not the EU. This is the NationStates United Nations. Apples do not equal oranges.

With this we finish the discussion and we only regret that so many delegates have introduced such malicious remarks concernig such serious matter like basic human rights... but what could we expect from an organisation built of so many undemocratic countries, dictatorships, anarchies and fanatic totalitarisms with no regard of human freedoms...

This is the most hilarious piece of rabid demagoguery I've seen today, and I was watching Rush O'Reilly at breakfast.

Thus, let us forget about human rights in the UN, we suggest. Let us focus on resolutions about holidays, common sense etc...

Human rights? The last human rights proposal we passed dealt with Labor Relations, and that's one of the five in the entirety of 2007. You're just pissy because your obviously illegal proposal was deleted for strength violations.

But yes, let's go back to repealing common sense, then... I've always wanted to shave with a chainsaw.

*snip*Your snark is not needed; the United Nations has passed well over 50 Human Rights resolutions. Just because yours is terrible, and twice removed for illegality, doesn't mean we don't care about human rights. In fact, there are two excellent replacements being considered for End Slavery; till such time as we are ready to hear on them again, we'll gladly continue with repealing holidays and negligence statutes that never should have passed in the first place.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt...

"CALL ON" is not a binding clause. It's close, and it's a very strong suggestion, but it doesn't mandate anything. Nations are still free to ignore every single line that starts with "CALLS ON", which leaves us with...

"SUGGESTS", which is a weaker clause than "CALLS ON".

Essentially, your Proposal is the UN saying "Hey, guys? Wouldn't it be neat if well all did this thing? No? You don't want to? Oh... okay... sorry for bothering you."

While soft language is acceptable (and common) in the real world (EU, the real UN, most every elective government), it doesn't work here. The NationStates UN cannot have non-binding Resolutions. This isn't a matter of ego or anything like that; it's because of how the game itself is coded. Since every Resolution, no matter how mild, has an effect on each and every member nation, the text needs to have some kind of teeth to it.

but what could we expect from an organisation built of so many undemocratic countries, dictatorships, anarchies and fanatic totalitarisms with no regard of human freedoms...
Thus, let us forget about human rights in the UN, we suggest. Let us focus on resolutions about holidays, common sense etc...

You could easily be free from the tyranny of these undemocratic-anarchistic-totalitarian-dictator nations who apparently make up the vast majority of the UN and simply MUST be the ones responsible for your garbage proposal being rejected by one and all by resigning your membership.

- Robert Jekingson, Newly appointed Roseariean Minister of Pointing out the Obvious

In our country we say: "Hit the table and the scissors will answer"


P.S. To The Most Glorious Hack

Couldn't you explain that before the crusade against me started? Especially that I have asked for what exactly you meant by "NO ACTION CLAUSE". Now I see which part exactly was wrong and thank you for that...

OOC: Alternatively, you could have read the rules thread (you know, the one titled "Rules for UN Proposals [now binding]" stickied at the top of the forum listing) which explains all this at length. Or revised your proposal in this thread and asked for opinions. Given the sheer bloody-minded arrogance you've displayed here, expecting sympathy is a bit much.

You could easily be free from the tyranny of these undemocratic-anarchistic-totalitarian-dictator nations who apparently make up the vast majority of the UN and simply MUST be the ones responsible for your garbage proposal being rejected by one and all by resigning your membership.

Sir, as an ambassador for a nation with a record of democratic rights second to very few in or out of this chamber and a keen observer of the internal workings of the United Nations, we must utterly reject your suggestion. Indeed, it contains the seeds of its own destruction; describing something as a "garbage proposal" and then attributing its rejection to some nefarious conspiracy is disingeneous at best and dishonest at worst. Worse, it is obviously disingeneous and dishonest. If this is the level of demagogary you consider acceptable, we strongly suggest that in the future you leave both honesty and dishonesty to those here more practiced at them.

Couldn't you explain that before the crusade against me started?Crusade? What crusade? You submitted it, and I deleted it, telling you it wasn't strong enough for the way you submitted it. You then turned around and submitted with a stronger selection. Another Mod deleted it; if it wasn't "Signifigant", it certainly wasn't "Strong".

You then threw a temper tantrum in the forums. I fail to see how any of this is my fault.

You again totally missunderstood me. Is my English really so bad? ;-)
I thanked you and the "crusade" word was NOT directed to you...