NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: Below is a draft of my resolution on state religion. I'm looking for support for this resolution and suggestions before it is proposed.

Edit: This resolution is now for the establishment of a new committe.

Alarmed by Resolutions #19 and #41, which seek to regulate religion and religious laws.

Deeply Concerned by the animosity member states of the United Nations have towards nations with a state religion.

Recognizes that the many nations involved in the United Nations have different idealogical beliefs and view points.

Seeks to protect state religion from being regulated and discriminated against in future resolutions.

Further seeks the protection of religious law, practiced by nations, from future resolutions which would hinder or prohibit it.

Suggests that a committe be formed within the United Nations with the purpose of protecting religious nations from anti-religious resolutions, and with an added purpose of helping to alleviate religious tensions.

Further suggests that religion be respected and that other member states not condemn nations for practicing capital punishment as a form of punishment in religious law.

1. A committe will be established, which will protect nations from anti-religious resolutions and seek to alleviate religious tensions between member states. This committe will be refered to as the UNRPC (United Nations Religious Protection Committe.)

2. Future anti-religious resolutions will be more closely reviewed, and other nations will not seek to hinder or stop religious law from being practiced in countries that have a legitimate state religion..

Amendments aren't allowed, and you can only repeal a resolution with a repeal.

Amendments aren't allowed, and you can only repeal a resolution with a repeal.

Alright, I'll fix it.

Edit: Fixed.

1. A committe will be established, which will protect nations from anti-religious resolutions [...]

2. Future anti-religious resolutions will be more closely reviewed

OOC: How exactly would this work?

Naturally against...

:confused:
Isn't 41 about barbaric punishments? I have read #19 and it is pretty vague. You are correct to be worried about persecution of religious beliefs. It is insinuating that religion is equal to theism which is not accurate because there are examples of civic religions that do not necessarily express any theistic formula except to claim that the State is supreme. A nation who goes to war based upon ideological beliefs that capitalism or communism is the better system to implement onto others is only replacing a theistic worldview of a supernatural god with an atheistic worldview of a national ideal.... hence both are religious and both are promoting their "god".... resolution #19 is only focusing on the religions that are theistic, which is a little problematic if you want to avoid the issues of war for idealogical purposes.... :eek:

Lanteana will support this measure, though traditionally Lanteans frown upon such forceful measures as state religion -- with one caveat: that the word "committe" be changed in the resolution to the proper spelling of "committee." (We wouldn't want anyone getting confused, would we?)

:confused:
Isn't 41 about barbaric punishments? I have read #19 and it is pretty vague. You are correct to be worried about persecution of religious beliefs. It is insinuating that religion is equal to theism which is not accurate because there are examples of civic religions that do not necessarily express any theistic formula except to claim that the State is supreme. A nation who goes to war based upon ideological beliefs that capitalism or communism is the better system to implement onto others is only replacing a theistic worldview of a supernatural god with an atheistic worldview of a national ideal.... hence both are religious and both are promoting their "god".... resolution #19 is only focusing on the religions that are theistic, which is a little problematic if you want to avoid the issues of war for idealogical purposes.... :eek:

Resolution #41 might make practices involved in religious law illegal, because some of the punishments under religious law are capital and might be considered "barbaric" by the United Nations as long as this resolution is in place.

Also, I don't think idealogical beliefs such as communism can be catagorized as religions. However, I would not be against adding wording to the resolution to exclude unrecognized religions. The UNRPC could also take on the responsibility of classifying recognized and unrecognized religions.

This resolution is aimed at protecting nations that practice religious law and have a theocratic element within their government from nations which would seek to outlaw or hinder their religious practices within their own country. These differ from states which force the people to worship the state, because it isn't state worship, the state and the people are worshipping their respective God.

I hope that clears things up. Are you interested in supporting this resolution?

Lanteana will support this measure, though traditionally Lanteans frown upon such forceful measures as state religion -- with one caveat: that the word "committe" be changed in the resolution to the proper spelling of "committee." (We wouldn't want anyone getting confused, would we?)

The delegate from Centeral Anatolia thanks you, for your support and spell checking. I agree, the last thing we'd want to do is confuse people.

Naturally against...

Care to tell us why?

Resolution 19 doesn't do anything. (OOC: It says some stuff but it's all suggestions or illegal game wise.)

41 is against barbaric punishments, in interrogation, if you wanna crucify someone go right ahead. You just can't use anything they say up there in court.

There aren't any restricting resolutions with regards to religion. We've got one promoting tolerance that we could probably do without, but it takes a herculean effort at times to repeal something like that. I don't see this as needed, but I think it would conflict enough with 19 to make it impossible to pass.

My main disagreement, I suppose, is that you're wrong...

Resolution 19 doesn't do anything. (OOC: It says some stuff but it's all suggestions or illegal game wise.)

41 is against barbaric punishments, in interrogation, if you wanna crucify someone go right ahead. You just can't use anything they say up there in court.

There aren't any restricting resolutions with regards to religion. We've got one promoting tolerance that we could probably do without, but it takes a herculean effort at times to repeal something like that. I don't see this as needed, but I think it would conflict enough with 19 to make it impossible to pass.

My main disagreement, I suppose, is that you're wrong...

Mainly we take offense to Resolution #19 and see it as an indirect threat to our religion, and way of life. We shouldn't have to tolerate other religions within our borders and give them equality under our government. We also feel that Resolution #41 restrict religious authority within our borders, and that punishment carried out by the state in the name of religion should be tolerated, no matter what the circumstances are.

This resolution does not conflict with Resolution #19, because if it did Resolution #19 would be illegal. Resolution #19 is more of a threat than a mandate on religion, we aren't being forced to tolerate other religions within our borders or give them equal political rights. Ultimately, this resolution is being proposed to protect nations such as ours against resolutions such as Resolution #19 and the member states which would support it.

Now, nothing in the United Nations Carter or past resolutions states that we can't pass a resolution on state religion, which would bring into existance a committee that would serve as a negociating body between secular and theocratic nations. This is legal, justified, and would only serve to prevent meaningless wars.

While we appreciate the position of the author, we cannot support a resolution that does nothing except create a singularly toothless committee and ask us not to condemn something we find contemptible.

While we appreciate the position of the author, we cannot support a resolution that does nothing except create a singularly toothless committee and ask us not to condemn something we find contemptible.

What would the delegate from Gobbannium find tolerable? Or to rephrase the question, what responsibilities would your country be comfortable with the UNRPC having?

We are comfortable with charging the UNRPC with seeking to alleviate religious tensions between member nations; that is a worthy, albeit doomed, goal. We are not comfortable that charging the UNRPC to have anything at all to do with future religion-related legislation, never mind "protect" members from it, is in any sense legal.

We are not sure that the result achieves anything that the preamble seeks. This is not necessarily a bad thing, since we are not certain that the preamble is starting from a sound assessment of the situation, or that it's professed aims are desirable, but that is a matter for later debate.

We are comfortable with charging the UNRPC with seeking to alleviate religious tensions between member nations; that is a worthy, albeit doomed, goal. We are not comfortable that charging the UNRPC to have anything at all to do with future religion-related legislation, never mind "protect" members from it, is in any sense legal.

We are not sure that the result achieves anything that the preamble seeks. This is not necessarily a bad thing, since we are not certain that the preamble is starting from a sound assessment of the situation, or that it's professed aims are desirable, but that is a matter for later debate.

So does the delegate from Gobbannium seeks to prohibit religious law in our country? We feel that our goals are noble and they only serve to protect nations with state religions, they do not negatively affect the governments of secular nations.

So we can agree that the UNRPC should act as a negociating body between secular and religious nations? Would you also agree to giving the UNRPC the responsibility of determining whether or not a nation legimately practices a state religion, and if the state religion is a legitiment religion and not merely a form of state worship? We'd be happy with granting the UNRPC these responsibilities and leaving it at that, because we believe that this would be enough to protect our state religion and provide better representation for nations like ours in the United Nations. The UNRPC could achieve the goals we intend it to achieve without directly affecting future resolutions, if it had these responsibilities.

2. Future anti-religious resolutions will be more closely reviewed ...
Nope. Calls for a game mechanics action (some sort of review process) that can't be included. Take it out, please.

Nope. Calls for a game mechanics action (some sort of review process) that can't be included. Take it out, please.

My delegation had already planned on removing it, but thank you for your input.

We would also like to add that we never intended to call for a review process. We were just urging nations to more closely review the resolution and its effect on nations such as ours before voting on it. Looking back, we believe it didn't have a place in the operative clauses and this is why we plan to remove it in the next draft.

So does the delegate from Gobbannium seeks to prohibit religious law in our country?
The Gobbannaen delegation certainly reserves the right to observe that any law is inhumane and unworthy, be it religious or not, and trusts that other nations would hold us to similar account. To put it at its most stark in an example the author has chosen, we do not believe that religion and tradition excuse murder.

So we can agree that the UNRPC should act as a negociating body between secular and religious nations?
That was not our statement, and we think it unhelpful and misleading to characterise international relations in such a manner. We think that the UNRPC will have considerably more difficulty in acting as a negotiating body between nations of different religions.

Would you also agree to giving the UNRPC the responsibility of determining whether or not a nation legimately practices a state religion, and if the state religion is a legitiment religion and not merely a form of state worship?
Given that these terms are clearly intended to be technical but are undefined, we cannot so agree. Clarification may change our position.

We'd be happy with granting the UNRPC these responsibilities and leaving it at that, because we believe that this would be enough to protect our state religion and provide better representation for nations like ours in the United Nations. The UNRPC could achieve the goals we intend it to achieve without directly affecting future resolutions, if it had these responsibilities.
Since as far as we can see the UNRPC achieves precisely nothing, we are bemused as to how the honoured delegate reached this conclusion.

The Gobbannaen delegation certainly reserves the right to observe that any law is inhumane and unworthy, be it religious or not, and trusts that other nations would hold us to similar account. To put it at its most stark in an example the author has chosen, we do not believe that religion and tradition excuse murder.


That was not our statement, and we think it unhelpful and misleading to characterise international relations in such a manner. We think that the UNRPC will have considerably more difficulty in acting as a negotiating body between nations of different religions.


Given that these terms are clearly intended to be technical but are undefined, we cannot so agree. Clarification may change our position.


Since as far as we can see the UNRPC achieves precisely nothing, we are bemused as to how the honoured delegate reached this conclusion.

Let me explain myself a little more clearly. The UNRPC would determine which world religions are recognized by the United Nations, and which "religions" are just leader or state worship. In this way, we can determine which nations legimately practice state religions and which nations don't. One possible benefit to this is that any future resolutions directed toward nations that practice state or leader worship, won't affect nations that legitimately practice a state religion.

And the negociations between secular and religious nations that the UNRPC allows should not be taken lightly. Negociations in a neutral setting, of a religious context, can prevent war. Also, negociations would be held between two countries with differing state religions. Not only this, but the UNRPC could seek to settle international incidents involving religion at the consent of the governments involved in the incidents. For example, a secular government could be undermining the religious laws of a neighboring country by helping convicts flee the country, and in that situation the UNRPC would step in to try and alleviate the tensions.

Let me explain myself a little more clearly. The UNRPC would determine which world religions are recognized by the United Nations, and which "religions" are just leader or state worship. In this way, we can determine which nations legimately practice state religions and which nations don't. One possible benefit to this is that any future resolutions directed toward nations that practice state or leader worship, won't affect nations that legitimately practice a state religion.


What would happen in cases where one aspect of a complex religion is the view that the leader is divinely appointed, and perhaps even the descendant of a deity?

(OOC: I'm thinking of Julius Caesar being a "descendant of Venus", and the religion in Ancient Egypt, in which the pharaoh descended from Ra.)

We also feel that Resolution #41 restrict religious authority within our borders, and that punishment carried out by the state in the name of religion should be tolerated, no matter what the circumstances are.

There's no way my country can support this. Violating human rights and using religion as an excuse? No.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

What would happen in cases where one aspect of a complex religion is the view that the leader is divinely appointed, and perhaps even the descendant of a deity?

(OOC: I'm thinking of Julius Caesar being a "descendant of Venus", and the religion in Ancient Egypt, in which the pharaoh descended from Ra.)



There's no way my country can support this. Violating human rights and using religion as an excuse? No.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

We feel that it is complex situations such as the one you described that the UNRPC should handle. As a nation that has a supreme leader however, we feel that because our supreme leader is a product of our faith and not the other way around, that we're practicing a legitimate religion. However, it would ultimately be up to the UNRPC to decide whether or not the country is sincere in their religious convictions, and to determine the differences between torture and religious customs.

You may consider punishment in religious law to be barbaric, but the majority of our population is deeply devout and agrees with the consequences of breaking religious law. Corporal punishment is a way of repenting in our religion, your physical body might be "tortured" but your spirit is being cleansed. Capital punishment is an extension of that, reserved for those who can not be saved in this life. Many democratic countries practice capital punishment, so we should be allowed to do the same. This is besides the point, because no resolution states that we can't practice corporal or capital punishment, there is one that limits it in court however. Resolution #41 troubles us, but we will abide by it in the mean time.

I'd like to give notice to my fellow member states, I will be introducing the second draft of my resolution in a little while.

;)
yeah I get your point now that you've explained it... although I prefer the idea of linking ideological thinkings together in one batch.... Too many times I see the non-theists assume a position of pseudo authority over the theists... and their main argument? That the theists are only holding onto their position based upon faith without realizing that the non-theists are themselves holding onto a worldview using an assumption based upon?..... yeah you guessed it, faith that their assumption is accurate. On that basis, even secularism is a form of looking at the world and claiming superiority upon others....

Just look at one response, "human rights violated in the name of religion", human rights were instituted by a way of looking at the world and using ethics to invent them, this is assuming a superior view assuming that religion would somehow necessarily debase this.... and if it does debase this, under what terms can the Human Rights be imposed? (after all the secularist denies a universal truth but a subjective reality for the benefit of all).... The human rights are contradictory if one tries to impose that subjective reality upon some religion that is playing under the same rules as the secularist: it claims for itself its own subjective reality as true.

The lesser of two evils may be to leave the secular fantasy in power so we can keep human rights (I shudder to think that we'd go back into a society of sacrificing humans to insure good crops).... I just wish the secularists would not bite the idea of universal truth in the hand because that is where the real source of human rights come from.... (so yeah I see your point in needing a new resolution.... but I don't necessarily agree that we destroy the foundation so quickly and replace it with something worse)

Point out the flaw in the existing system? Yes, lets eliminate our superiority assumptions, our complacency. Replace the system because it is flawed? Well, lets look at the replacement VERY carefully before we even attempt it, and so far.... I say not at this stage. :(

Resolution for the Establishment of the UNRRC (United Nations Religious Representation Committee.)

Draft 2.0

Alarmed by the tensions between secular member states and member states with state religions.

Deeply concerned by the lack of representation that religion and religious organizations have in the United Nations.

Deeply disturbed by illegitimate religious states, which would seek to undermine the religious practices that legitimate religious states perform.

Recognizes the need for a neutral body within the United Nations, to handle complex religious issues.

Further recognizes the concerns of secular nations.

Hereby declares that

1) A committee will be established, which will handle the complex religious issues that are brought up in the United Nations. Said committee will be charged with determining which religious states are legitimate, and which are illegitimate, aswell as providing a neutral setting for negociations between religious and secular states. This committee will be called the United Nations Religious Representation Committee.

2) The UNRRC will be staffed by diplomats from both religious, and secular nations, so as to keep the UNRRC's judgements fair and equal to all parties.

However, it would ultimately be up to the UNRPC to decide whether or not the country is sincere in their religious convictions

Whose sincerity exactly would be assessed? The leaders'? That of the majority of the population? That of a significant minority?


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Whose sincerity exactly would be assessed? The leaders'? That of the majority of the population? That of a significant minority?


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The religion itself. If the religion itself is a product of leader worship or state worship, as opposed to leader worship or state worship being a product of religion, then it can't be considered a legitimate religion. The sincerity of the population and leaders may be taken into account in more complex situations, where there isn't a clear distinction, but it is the religion itself that is investigated first and foremost.

Sorry, you can't establish committees to review future legislation, you can't staff committees with representatives from nations, and resolutions have to do more than just establish a committee. It's all in the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).

Sorry, you can't establish committees to review future legislation, you can't staff committees with representatives from nations, and resolutions have to do more than just establish a committee. It's all in the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).

I'll read over the rules again, and include changes in Draft 2.1.

Resolution on Illegitimate State Religions

Draft 3.0

Alarmed by illegitimate religious states, which would seek to undermine the religious practices that legitimate religious states perform.

Deeply concerned by the lack of representation that religion and religious organizations have in the United Nations.

Deeply disturbed by the tensions between secular and religious nations.

Recognizes the need for a neutral body within the United Nations, to handle complex religious issues.

Further recognizes the need to distinguish between legitimate state religions and illegitimate state religions.

Hereby declares that

1) Governments practicing illegitimate religious practices will no longer be considered to be governments practicing a state religion, and the United Nations will not recognize them as such.

2) Future resolutions concerning religion and state religion will not apply to nations that practice an illegitimate state religion.

3) A committee will be established, which will handle the complex religious issues that are brought up in the United Nations. Said committee will be charged with determining which religious states are legitimate, and which are illegitimate, aswell as providing a neutral setting for negociations between religious and secular states. This committee will be called the United Nations Religious Representation Committee.

This is a good revision, well different from the first draft. But there is a problem, the Nation of Fail so Hard is conserned with how the UN religious comittee will determine which state is legitiamtely religious, and which isnt. Doesnt calling a self proclaimed legitiamately religious state iligitimate contradict the proposal's aims to develop religious representation? After all, most religious beliefs are interpretations.

Also, The Nation of Fail so Hard preferred the previous rule to which another country may not interfere with religious practices, such as capital punishment.

This is a good revision, well different from the first draft. But there is a problem, the Nation of Fail so Hard is conserned with how the UN religious comittee will determine which state is legitiamtely religious, and which isnt. Doesnt calling a self proclaimed legitiamately religious state iligitimate contradict the proposal's aims to develop religious representation? After all, most religious beliefs are interpretations.

Also, The Nation of Fail so Hard preferred the previous rule to which another country may not interfere with religious practices, such as capital punishment.

We feel that legitimate religious nations are those that have integrated a pre-existing religion into their governmental and/or judicial systems, without altering pre-existing religious doctrine. With that said, our resolution seeks to seperate legitimate state religion from leader and state worship. We feel that this will give us better representation in the United Nations, and we also feel that this will give better representation to religious organizations and institutions around the world, governmental or otherwise.

We also believe that nations are already prohibited from passing resolutions which would regulate our governmental and judicial processes, or ban our idealogical views. So we see no need to add that to the resolution at this time.

Okay, let's have at this, shall we?

Alarmed by illegitimate religious states, which would seek to undermine the religious practices that legitimate religious states perform.

I don't know about any other nation, but we Altanari aren't especially alarmed by what we really see as a non-issue. We're more alarmed by the idea that the UN, if this resolution were to actually pass someday, would then be promoting the idea of deciding what is a legitimate religion, and what isn't.

Deeply concerned by the lack of representation that religion and religious organizations have in the United Nations.

Again, we're not concerned about this. If religious entities want to speak in the GA, they can at any time. They just can't vote. That's why it's the United Nations, not the United Whoeverwantstovotecan.

Deeply disturbed by the tensions between secular and religious nations.

We are actually somewhat disturbed by this also, but this resolution isn't going to do a thing to fix those tensions.

Recognizes the need for a neutral body within the United Nations, to handle complex religious issues.

Again, something we do not recognize. Religious issues can be handled by the people having the issues - why do you feel the UN needs to get involved?

Further recognizes the need to distinguish between legitimate state religions and illegitimate state religions.

We simply do not recognize that this is an issue the UN needs to get involved in. Deciding what is a legitimate religion and what isn't is just a can of worms I really don't think we need to be opening.

1) Governments practicing illegitimate religious practices will no longer be considered to be governments practicing a state religion, and the United Nations will not recognize them as such.

So, because someone decides their religion isn't 'legitimate', we should declare many nations to simply not have a religion at all?

2) Future resolutions concerning religion and state religion will not apply to nations that practice an illegitimate state religion.

Why, exactly, do nations with 'illegitimate' religions get a free pass from future resolutions?

3) A committee will be established, which will handle the complex religious issues that are brought up in the United Nations. Said committee will be charged with determining which religious states are legitimate, and which are illegitimate

I didn't even need to read the rest of that clause once I saw this bit. The UN has no business deciding what religions, or theocracies, are legitimate or not. Are we to start deciding what democracies, or monarchies, or dictatorships, are 'legitimate' states also?

Altanar will never support legislation that puts the UN in the role of being an arbiter to decide whether a state is 'legitimate' or not.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

I don't know about any other nation, but we Altanari aren't especially alarmed by what we really see as a non-issue. We're more alarmed by the idea that the UN, if this resolution were to actually pass someday, would then be promoting the idea of deciding what is a legitimate religion, and what isn't.

You may consider this to be non-issue, but what happens when a nation invades Altanari in the name of Catholicism? What happens when holy wars are declared in the name of religion, because states twist the religious doctrines for their own military and domestic goals? My nation refuses to sit by as the reputations of faithful religious nations are tarnished by states that claim to practice a state religion. A distinction must be made, and it must be made before any harm can be done.

Again, we're not concerned about this. If religious entities want to speak in the GA, they can at any time. They just can't vote. That's why it's the United Nations, not the United Whoeverwantstovotecan.

At the present time it is very dangerous for religious entities to speak, esspecially if it is in protest of their government's actions. Their voices go unheard and the United Nations has so far refused to offer them any representation.

We are actually somewhat disturbed by this also, but this resolution isn't going to do a thing to fix those tensions.

This resolution will ease those tensions. Once a distinction is made between nations which misrepresent their religion and nations which do not, there will be less stigma behind negociations with legitimate religious states. Not only this, but the United Nations can remove the religious stigma behind taking action against illegitimate religious states. In the end, this resolution can only do good for secular and religious relations..

Again, something we do not recognize. Religious issues can be handled by the people having the issues - why do you feel the UN needs to get involved?

Because that is the purpose of the United Nations. To prevent war and conflict.

We simply do not recognize that this is an issue the UN needs to get involved in. Deciding what is a legitimate religion and what isn't is just a can of worms I really don't think we need to be opening.

No, making the distinction between a legitimate religion and an illegitimate religion is the first step to creating a more peaceful international environment.

So, because someone decides their religion isn't 'legitimate', we should declare many nations to simply not have a religion at all?

Not in all cases. In cases where the religion was invented by the state as a tool to control its people and/or wage war we can't honestly consider that religion to be legitimate. In cases where states manipulate or change religious doctrine by force, we don't say the religion is illegitimate, we say that the nation is not legitimately practicing said religion.

Why, exactly, do nations with 'illegitimate' religions get a free pass from future resolutions?

They don't get a free pass, they just don't get put into the same catagory as legitimate religious states when resolutions are passed. The same applies for unrecognized religions, which would be put into the same catagory as recognized religions.

I didn't even need to read the rest of that clause once I saw this bit. The UN has no business deciding what religions, or theocracies, are legitimate or not. Are we to start deciding what democracies, or monarchies, or dictatorships, are 'legitimate' states also?

The United Nations has every right to determine what their dealing with, they have every right to be able to classify exactly what a nation is. They already do it. They've classified the Holy Republic of Centeral Anatolia as a "Inoffensive Centralist Democracy," and I'm certain they've classified Altanar based on their religious and political practices.

You may consider this to be non-issue, but what happens when a nation invades Altanari in the name of Catholicism? What happens when holy wars are declared in the name of religion, because states twist the religious doctrines for their own military and domestic goals? My nation refuses to sit by as the reputations of faithful religious nations are tarnished by states that claim to practice a state religion. A distinction must be made, and it must be made before any harm can be done.

If a nation invaded us as a crusade for any religion, or for any other reason, for that matter, that's why we have a military. We don't need the UN to defend us, nor are we asking it to. As for the reputations of "faithful religious nations" being tarnished, you make it sound like this is a huge issue. I'm not convinced it is, and you're really not offering anything to prove that it is.

At the present time it is very dangerous for religious entities to speak, esspecially if it is in protest of their government's actions. Their voices go unheard and the United Nations has so far refused to offer them any representation.

Again, since they can speak in the GA whenever they like, that's how the UN has offered them the chance to make their opinions known. As far as it being "dangerous" for them to speak out, their cowardice is not really our concern, honestly, and we don't see how this resolution even helps them at all.

This resolution will ease those tensions. Once a distinction is made between nations which misrepresent their religion and nations which do not, there will be less stigma behind negociations with legitimate religious states. Not only this, but the United Nations can remove the religious stigma behind taking action against illegitimate religious states. In the end, this resolution can only do good for secular and religious relations..

How, exactly, is it going to ease tensions between religious and secular states? A poor piece of legislation that wants the UN, among other things, to get involved in religious squabbles and declare some religions and/or states "illegitimate", sounds to us like the perfect recipe to increase tensions, not cure them.

Because that is the purpose of the United Nations. To prevent war and conflict.

Even if that is the UN's purpose (which I'm not so sure about), this resolution ain't going to do it.

No, making the distinction between a legitimate religion and an illegitimate religion is the first step to creating a more peaceful international environment.

Again, telling someone (or an entire country) their religion or state is "illegitimate" doesn't strike us as a way to promote peace at all. That's usually how wars start, in fact.

Not in all cases. In cases where the religion was invented by the state as a tool to control its people and/or wage war we can't honestly consider that religion to be legitimate. In cases where states manipulate or change religious doctrine by force, we don't say the religion is illegitimate, we say that the nation is not legitimately practicing said religion.

All religions are invented by someone, and can be used as a tool for control or for promoting war. That's what happens when mortals get ahold of religion. Trying to prevent that is an impossible task, and one that this body is not suited for. And yet again, we don't think labeling a religion, or a religious state, as "illegitimate" is going to help anything at all.

The United Nations has every right to determine what their dealing with, they have every right to be able to classify exactly what a nation is. They already do it. They've classified the Holy Republic of Centeral Anatolia as a "Inoffensive Centralist Democracy," and I'm certain they've classified Altanar based on their religious and political practices.

Classifying a nation is a far cry from saying whether or not it's "legitimate". The classifications that the UN assigns to nations are not a judgment. Nowhere does it say, for example, that Altanar, which is currently classified as a "Left-Leaning College State", is "illegitimate" for governing itself that way. Nor does it say that Centeral Anatolia is "illegitimate" for being an "Inoffensive Centrist Democracy". Your resolution would have the UN deciding whose religion/theocracy is "legitimate" or not. Can you not see how that is a really, really bad idea?

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

If a nation invaded us as a crusade for any religion, or for any other reason, for that matter, that's why we have a military. We don't need the UN to defend us, nor are we asking it to. As for the reputations of "faithful religious nations" being tarnished, you make it sound like this is a huge issue. I'm not convinced it is, and you're really not offering anything to prove that it is.

So if said country proved to be too powerful for your country to handle and proceeded to occupy you, would you still reject aid from other nations? Also, this is a huge issue in the world, in a world in which religion is twisted for political and military needs. My nation feels that we must pass legislation that indentifys those who would do harm to the reputation of our religion and other religions around the world, so that when something does happen it can not be used as a pretext for an invasion of religious countries.

Again, since they can speak in the GA whenever they like, that's how the UN has offered them the chance to make their opinions known. As far as it being "dangerous" for them to speak out, their cowardice is not really our concern, honestly, and we don't see how this resolution even helps them at all.

I'll use our neighboring country of Eastern Anatolia as an example here. In Eastern Anatolia the Catholics are abused and given no political representation. The country is heavily anti-religious. If any Catholics rise up in resistance or speak out against the government, their entire family is tracked down and executed. These men are not cowards, they simply fear for their families.

Also, it should be noted that most Catholics seek to aquire rights through peaceful means and prevent the bloodshed that would come with revolution.

How, exactly, is it going to ease tensions between religious and secular states? A poor piece of legislation that wants the UN, among other things, to get involved in religious squabbles and declare some religions and/or states "illegitimate", sounds to us like the perfect recipe to increase tensions, not cure them.

Religious squabbles? You seem to think that religion takes a back seat to politics, and you are very very wrong my friend. Religion is the building block of civilization, a country without religion is a morally bankrupt country.

Again, telling someone (or an entire country) their religion or state is "illegitimate" doesn't strike us as a way to promote peace at all. That's usually how wars start, in fact.

It is better to fight a secular war than to fight a holy war. Holy wars expand and become very messy indeed.

All religions are invented by someone, and can be used as a tool for control or for promoting war. That's what happens when mortals get ahold of religion. Trying to prevent that is an impossible task, and one that this body is not suited for. And yet again, we don't think labeling a religion, or a religious state, as "illegitimate" is going to help anything at all.

How dare you insult our religion. Religion in Centeral Anatolia has been a uniting force throughout our history, we have prevented regional wars by appealing to the good nature of our Catholic brothers and sisters on many occasions.

Classifying a nation is a far cry from saying whether or not it's "legitimate". The classifications that the UN assigns to nations are not a judgment. Nowhere does it say, for example, that Altanar, which is currently classified as a "Left-Leaning College State", is "illegitimate" for governing itself that way. Nor does it say that Centeral Anatolia is "illegitimate" for being an "Inoffensive Centrist Democracy". Your resolution would have the UN deciding whose religion/theocracy is "legitimate" or not. Can you not see how that is a really, really bad idea?

You fail to realise that the United Nations does to political systems what I want to do to religion, they brand and identify them for what they do, not what they claim to be. A dictatorship may call itself a democracy, because it is still classified as a dictatorship by the United Nations.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador[/QUOTE]

The Holy Empire of Pugliasium would like to know why religion is now a matter of the Nation States UN? Religion is a very tricky, and hisotrically has been open to many interpretations.

It would be much better if the NSUN adopted a single religion, which the Holy Empire predicts will take a long time. Untill the NSUN Nations are united by a single Universal Church (or whatever it will wished to be called) can we not make religion a national matter, instead of an international one.

The Holy Empire of Pugliasium is a devout nation with a state religion that goes to war, and every so often has a crusade. Can't we just keep religion on down low, so we can continue our 2,000 year old tradition of Holy Wars, outlaw heresy, maintain our treasured fuedal system which is the keystone of Puglaisium's stability?

Why people? Why? Why do we need religion regulation? Why do we need to define marriage, to determine euthenasiam, and all that gibberish? Can't so called moral issues be left out and issues like making laws to protect the rights of serfs be made in?

Pius Paul IX,
Pontiff Maximus of the Pugliese Orthodox Church

PS, Is there a resolution that protects the rights of serfs? Becuase Pugliasium would like to make one.

The Holy Empire of Pugliasium would like to know why religion is now a matter of the Nation States UN? Religion is a very tricky, and hisotrically has been open to many interpretations.

It would be much better if the NSUN adopted a single religion, which the Holy Empire predicts will take a long time. Untill the NSUN Nations are united by a single Universal Church (or whatever it will wished to be called) can we not make religion a national matter, instead of an international one.

The Holy Empire of Pugliasium is a devout nation with a state religion that goes to war, and every so often has a crusade. Can't we just keep religion on down low, so we can continue our 2,000 year old tradition of Holy Wars, outlaw heresy, maintain our treasured fuedal system which is the keystone of Puglaisium's stability?

Why people? Why? Why do we need religion regulation? Why do we need to define marriage, to determine euthenasiam, and all that gibberish? Can't so called moral issues be left out and issues like making laws to protect the rights of serfs be made in?

Pius Paul IX,
Pontiff Maximus of the Pugliese Orthodox Church

PS, Is there a resolution that protects the rights of serfs? Becuase Pugliasium would like to make one.

I find it disturbing that you wage holy wars at leisure and claim to be a devout nation at the same time. Any follower of Christianity, whether it be Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox, would cherish peace and avoid war at all costs. We feel that you do not legitimately practice Christianity according to religious doctrine and would suggest that you give up your war mongering ways.

I find it disturbing that you wage holy wars at leisure and claim to be a devout nation at the same time. Any follower of Christianity, whether it be Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox, would cherish peace and avoid war at all costs. We feel that you do not legitimately practice Christianity according to religious doctrine and would suggest that you give up your war mongering ways.

There seems to be a problem with the way you are approaching this legislation, and this statement embodies it. By immediatley labelling certain nations and religions as "legitimate" or incorrect, you are in essence creating the same sort of disharmony that you want to prevent.

This is not a situation that warrants any attention. Nations that have a state religions are no more likely to infringe on the fundamental rights of citizens that any secular nation, and I'm certainly more concerned about the whole rather than the part. Snefaldia is a quasi-theocratic state; but we have no problems with secular administration nor do we opposed such things in foreign countries.

Any problems that such regimes have can be worked out without the United Nation's help.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

There seems to be a problem with the way you are approaching this legislation, and this statement embodies it. By immediatley labelling certain nations and religions as "legitimate" or incorrect, you are in essence creating the same sort of disharmony that you want to prevent.

This is not a situation that warrants any attention. Nations that have a state religions are no more likely to infringe on the fundamental rights of citizens that any secular nation, and I'm certainly more concerned about the whole rather than the part. Snefaldia is a quasi-theocratic state; but we have no problems with secular administration nor do we opposed such things in foreign countries.

Any problems that such regimes have can be worked out without the United Nation's help.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

Does your nation use religion as an excuse to go to war though? My nation has secular administration, the military being the most prominant secular administration. We have a Supreme Leader and a President, we allow the President to handle secular and international issues, we allow the Supreme Leader to handle domestic and religious issues. Now, if we go to war we don't use religion to justify it, we don't wage holy wars.

You have to recognize the differences between a religious nation which wages wars for secular reasons, and a religious nation which wages wars for religious reasons.

Does your nation use religion as an excuse to go to war though? My nation has secular administration, the military being the most prominant secular administration. We have a Supreme Leader and a President, we allow the President to handle secular and international issues, we allow the Supreme Leader to handle domestic and religious issues. Now, if we go to war we don't use religion to justify it, we don't wage holy wars.

There have been numerous instances in Snefaldian history where ardent supporters of Aatem Nal have committed grievious offenses against human rights or condoned violence to spread the religion. But, this is not indicative of the vast majority of Arsathaes, nor is is supported by Aatem Nal.

But our specifics are not important. What does it matter if a nation uses religious reasons to go to war? Is that any worse than a "regular" war?

You have to recognize the differences between a religious nation which wages wars for secular reasons, and a religious nation which wages wars for religious reasons.

What's the difference? War is war, people will die. There is no reason to draw distinctions between theocratic states and secular governments in this regard.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

Though we recognize the good intentions behind the proposal we cannot support it.

Alarmed by illegitimate religious states, which would seek to undermine the religious practices that legitimate religious states perform.

Given that no definition or at least guideline is given to distinguish a legitimate from an illegitimate state, we can’t support this statement. Further, we have to question if illegitimate states actually exist. Perhaps “government” would be a better word choice..

Deeply concerned by the lack of representation that religion and religious organizations have in the United Nations.

Religion and religious organizations should not be represented in the U.N. This is the United Nations, not the Union of Many Different Interest Groups. Religious nations and theocracies have as much representation as do secular democracies, monarchies, or dictatorships.

Deeply disturbed by the tensions between secular and religious nations.

Granted, this is something that we might be concerned about.

Recognizes the need for a neutral body within the United Nations, to handle complex religious issues.

This clause is so vague that is positively mystifying. What exactly does “complex religious issues” mean? We sincerely hope you are not referring to issues about dogma, rites and rituals, or interpretation of religious texts.

Further recognizes the need to distinguish between legitimate state religions and illegitimate state religions.

And accomplish what?



Hereby declares that

1) Governments practicing illegitimate religious practices will no longer be considered to be governments practicing a state religion, and the United Nations will not recognize them as such.

We really cannot understand what you are trying to achieve here. What exactly is legitimate and what isn’t? The proposal would give the UN the power to declare certain governments illegitimate, but it sets not the slightest guideline as to what is illegitimate or not. As much as we trust the UN gnomes (whom we believe to be among the foremost experts in their fields) we simply cannot accept giving them such ample powers in a subject as delicate as this.


2) Future resolutions concerning religion and state religion will not apply to nations that practice an illegitimate state religion.


For the most part, UN resolutions suggest, require, or forbid nations to do something. This clause seems to give UN nations who do something illegitimate to still vote and have a voice in the UN while at the same time exempting them from the requirements set by resolutions. This is definitely not something we find desirable. Furthermore, we would also have to question its legality.


3) A committee will be established, which will handle the complex religious issues that are brought up in the United Nations. Said committee will be charged with determining which religious states are legitimate, and which are illegitimate, aswell as providing a neutral setting for negociations between religious and secular states. This committee will be called the United Nations Religious Representation Committee.


Once again, the term “complex religious issues” deeply confuses us. And, once again, we question the pertinence of the term “illegitimate state”.

As has been pointed out before, simply labeling a religious state as illegitimate will not have any benefit whatsoever. It would just increase the tensions we would all like to see alleviated.

We could agree with the idea of having a neutral setting for negotiations between religious and secular states. We however see no reason why this couldn’t be expanded to nations who have conflicts arising from other (non religious) issues.

It is undesirable to give the UN power to judge what religions are legitimate and what religions are not. If a religions has one true follower, how can it be illegitimate in the sole sense of the concept of religion?

It is impossible for us all to come to a reasonable consensus over what religions are legitimate.

This proposal will not have our support.

-Gordon Tills, Roseariean Ambassador.

Seeing that resolution is now legal and that both sides of the argument have had time to present their views, I will be proposing this resolution and putting it on the floor for voting. Look for it in the proposal listings.

We are currently attaining endorsements in preperation for the proposal.

So if said country proved to be too powerful for your country to handle and proceeded to occupy you, would you still reject aid from other nations? Also, this is a huge issue in the world, in a world in which religion is twisted for political and military needs. My nation feels that we must pass legislation that indentifys those who would do harm to the reputation of our religion and other religions around the world, so that when something does happen it can not be used as a pretext for an invasion of religious countries.

We wouldn't reject aid from other nations if they offered it. We don't think it's the UN's job to fight our battles for us, however. And if you're concerned about religion being twisted for political and military goals, what about everything else that gets twisted for those same goals? Religion is but one of them. Nationalism, patriotism, ethnicity, regionalism, and ideologies galore can all be twisted for the same goals. Are we going to legislate what's "legitimate" and "illegitimate" amongst everything that someone can twist to serve their purposes? We'd be busy doing nothing but that, if that were so.

I'll use our neighboring country of Eastern Anatolia as an example here. In Eastern Anatolia the Catholics are abused and given no political representation. The country is heavily anti-religious. If any Catholics rise up in resistance or speak out against the government, their entire family is tracked down and executed. These men are not cowards, they simply fear for their families.

I sympathize with the Eastern Anatolians, but again, it's not the UN's job to address that issue. If you're bothered by it, invade Eastern Anatolia and overthrow their government. It happens all the time.

Also, it should be noted that most Catholics seek to aquire rights through peaceful means and prevent the bloodshed that would come with revolution.

I really have to bite my tongue on that one, seeing as how so many religions (including my own) just do not fit that description.

Religious squabbles? You seem to think that religion takes a back seat to politics, and you are very very wrong my friend. Religion is the building block of civilization, a country without religion is a morally bankrupt country.

I'm not an extremely religious man, so I'd be tempted to dispute that. But I'll try to be polite. I will say this, though, religion is not the only building block of civilization. And I don't see how this resolution you're pushing will help religion any.

It is better to fight a secular war than to fight a holy war. Holy wars expand and become very messy indeed.

As the esteemed Ambassador Shandreth from Snefaldia pointed out, war is war. It's rarely not a messy affair, secular or not.

How dare you insult our religion. Religion in Centeral Anatolia has been a uniting force throughout our history, we have prevented regional wars by appealing to the good nature of our Catholic brothers and sisters on many occasions.

I'm not insulting your religion. I mean, I didn't call it "illegitimate" or anything...

You fail to realise that the United Nations does to political systems what I want to do to religion, they brand and identify them for what they do, not what they claim to be. A dictatorship may call itself a democracy, because it is still classified as a dictatorship by the United Nations.

But the UN doesn't try to assign legitimacy to nations based on their governmental choices, and that is where your resolution fails. It tries to assign legitimacy to a much thornier subject, that of religion and whether or not a theocratic state is "legitimate". Good luck with that.

We are sorry to see that you're pressing ahead with this despite ample good advice to the contrary from many delegations. We'll have to oppose this.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador Emeritus (and a sort-of-practicing Solar Pantheonic)

We wouldn't reject aid from other nations if they offered it. We don't think it's the UN's job to fight our battles for us, however. And if you're concerned about religion being twisted for political and military goals, what about everything else that gets twisted for those same goals? Religion is but one of them. Nationalism, patriotism, ethnicity, regionalism, and ideologies galore can all be twisted for the same goals. Are we going to legislate what's "legitimate" and "illegitimate" amongst everything that someone can twist to serve their purposes? We'd be busy doing nothing but that, if that were so.



I sympathize with the Eastern Anatolians, but again, it's not the UN's job to address that issue. If you're bothered by it, invade Eastern Anatolia and overthrow their government. It happens all the time.



I really have to bite my tongue on that one, seeing as how so many religions (including my own) just do not fit that description.



I'm not an extremely religious man, so I'd be tempted to dispute that. But I'll try to be polite. I will say this, though, religion is not the only building block of civilization. And I don't see how this resolution you're pushing will help religion any.



As the esteemed Ambassador Shandreth from Snefaldia pointed out, war is war. It's rarely not a messy affair, secular or not.



I'm not insulting your religion. I mean, I didn't call it "illegitimate" or anything...



But the UN doesn't try to assign legitimacy to nations based on their governmental choices, and that is where your resolution fails. It tries to assign legitimacy to a much thornier subject, that of religion and whether or not a theocratic state is "legitimate". Good luck with that.

We are sorry to see that you're pressing ahead with this despite ample good advice to the contrary from many delegations. We'll have to oppose this.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador Emeritus (and a sort-of-practicing Solar Pantheonic)

We've already addressed your concerns, we feel that we can't reach a middle ground. You want the UNRRC to be weaker, others feel that it was too weak before Draft 3, and still others feel it should be even stronger. We feel this is the best draft and the one most likely to pass.

Seeing that resolution is now legalYou're getting ahead of yourself here.


Resolution on Illegitimate State ReligionsCategory? Strength?

1) Governments practicing illegitimate religious practices will no longer be considered to be governments practicing a state religion, and the United Nations will not recognize them as such.I'm not so sure this is within the power of the UN. The UN doesn't "recognize" nations. In other words, a nation with an 'illegitimate' state religion wouldn't be treated any differently by the game. Attempting to alter that would be a Game Mechanics violation. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

2) Future resolutions concerning religion and state religion will not apply to nations that practice an illegitimate state religion.Nope. Can't do that. UN Resolutions apply to all member states. There's no way to side-step the code.

3) A committee will be established, which will handle the complex religious issues that are brought up in the United Nations. Said committee will be charged with determining which religious states are legitimate, and which are illegitimate, aswell as providing a neutral setting for negociations between religious and secular states. This committee will be called the United Nations Religious Representation Committee.This actually looks okay. However, with the other two non-preamble clauses looking like they're illegal, this alone isn't enough.

This Proposal still needs more work.

I'm not so sure this is within the power of the UN. The UN doesn't "recognize" nations. In other words, a nation with an 'illegitimate' state religion wouldn't be treated any differently by the game. Attempting to alter that would be a Game Mechanics violation. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Nope. Can't do that. UN Resolutions apply to all member states. There's no way to side-step the code.

The argument's got a bit complicated, but I think that what he actually wants is the ability to guarantee NatSov rights in any matters (such as marriage, or adoption, or drugs) that might be covered by state religions' teachings to nations in which those state religions are "legitimate" ones without those rights extending to any nations that only have "illegitimate" state religions...

The argument's got a bit complicated, but I think that what he actually wants is the ability to guarantee NatSov rights in any matters (such as marriage, or adoption, or drugs) that might be covered by state religions' teachings to nations in which those state religions are "legitimate" ones without those rights extending to any nations that only have "illegitimate" state religions...

That's exactly what I want.

OCC: Resolution has been proposed, with slightly tweaked wording.

You're getting ahead of yourself here.


Category? Strength?The submitted version says, Political Stability, Strong.

I'm not so sure this is within the power of the UN. The UN doesn't "recognize" nations. In other words, a nation with an 'illegitimate' state religion wouldn't be treated any differently by the game. Attempting to alter that would be a Game Mechanics violation. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Nope. Can't do that. UN Resolutions apply to all member states. There's no way to side-step the code.

This actually looks okay. However, with the other two non-preamble clauses looking like they're illegal, this alone isn't enough.

This Proposal still needs more work.Then you or one of the other game mods better whack it since it's been submitted.

The submitted version says, Political Stability, Strong.

Then you or one of the other game mods better whack it since it's been submitted.

It isn't asking for changes in game mechanics.

No, but these clauses:

1) Governments practicing illegitimate religious practices will no longer be considered to be governments practicing a state religion.

2) Foreign aid and other benefiting provided to religious states in future resolutions will not be granted to nations that practice an illegitimate state religion.

Are, if you'll excuse me, completely moronic and patently offensive. Furthermore, the "UN Religious Representation Commitee" would be nothing more than a means by which to persecute states that do not conform to the accepted notion of a "proper" religion. This smacks of ideological ban, because it punishes states not for violations of human rights or torture bans, but rather for supporting a state religion which the Ceneteral Anatolian government simply doesn't like.

You cannot designate religions as legitimate or illegitimate, and you cannot punish states for supporting said religions. Doing so is nothing more than metagaming.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

No, but these clauses:



Are, if you'll excuse me, completely moronic and patently offensive. Furthermore, the "UN Religious Representation Commitee" would be nothing more than a means by which to persecute states that do not conform to the accepted notion of a "proper" religion. This smacks of ideological ban, because it punishes states not for violations of human rights or torture bans, but rather for supporting a state religion which the Ceneteral Anatolian government simply doesn't like.

You cannot designate religions as legitimate or illegitimate, and you cannot punish states for supporting said religions. Doing so is nothing more than metagaming.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

We'll leave that up to the proposal process. If it doesn't go through the resolution will be rewritten, but as of yet nobody has shown an alternative resolution so this is what we have.

We'll leave that up to the proposal process. If it doesn't go through the resolution will be rewritten, but as of yet nobody has shown an alternative resolution so this is what we have.

You're completely within your rights to do that, but I'm telling you now thats the wrong way to go about it. Not only have you been told repeatedly by the august members of this assembly that it is a poor idea and ill-forumulated, you've been told it's probably illegal.

Do what ye will.

Harmaland Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

No, but these clauses:
Are, if you'll excuse me, completely moronic and patently offensive. Furthermore, the "UN Religious Representation Commitee" would be nothing more than a means by which to persecute states that do not conform to the accepted notion of a "proper" religion. This smacks of ideological ban, because it punishes states not for violations of human rights or torture bans, but rather for supporting a state religion which the Ceneteral Anatolian government simply doesn't like.

You cannot designate religions as legitimate or illegitimate, and you cannot punish states for supporting said religions. Doing so is nothing more than metagaming.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

:mad:
I agree with Snefaldia, the ideological attacks upon a non-acceptable religions makes it against the rules.... I don't think it should be the UN's mandate to legitimize religions one way or another as new religions could be formed and the wording seems to imply that newly formed religions have a higher chance to be considered illegitimate. I assumed your proposal was heading towards a different direction when you first mentioned the idea.... towards a better tolerance for all ideologies including secular ones without putting one ideology above another.... boy was my assumption off. :confused:

It isn't asking for changes in game mechanics.

OOC: I'm not saying it is, but Hack said here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13192544&postcount=44) that the current version is not legal. You should trust Hack, he's not only a game mod, he's the author of the UN Proposal rules so he knows what he's talking about.

IC: I find the whole idea of the UN deciding legitimacy of religions to be morally repugnant and as such I cannot support this foolhardy idea in any way, shape or form.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The argument's got a bit complicated, but I think that what he actually wants is the ability to guarantee NatSov rights in any matters (such as marriage, or adoption, or drugs) that might be covered by state religions' teachings to nations in which those state religions are "legitimate" ones without those rights extending to any nations that only have "illegitimate" state religions...
We think it would be legal if it just provided a basis for distinguishing legitimate religions from illegitamate religions for future resolutions, but any resolution that relied on it would be subject to a House of Cards violation. In any case, the current wording does not match the intention at all.

We think it would be legal if it just provided a basis for distinguishing legitimate religions from illegitamate religions for future resolutions, but any resolution that relied on it would be subject to a House of Cards violation. In any case, the current wording does not match the intention at all.

This is an excellent idea, we will consider removing the resolution from the floor and editing it.

We think it would be legal if it just provided a basis for distinguishing legitimate religions from illegitamate religions for future resolutions, but any resolution that relied on it would be subject to a House of Cards violation. In any case, the current wording does not match the intention at all.I'm pretty certain a large number of religions are all convinced theirs is the only true religion. Do you really want the UN to get involved in telling the various nutjobs out there their religion is not legitimate?

Of course, you could argue that all religions are illegitimate anyway without the proof that whatever they worship is both divine and real - but perhaps that's a can of worms we should not open. ;)

Finally, you could argue that indigenous peoples are already entitled to worship whoever they want within their cultural boundaries anyway - "§3 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain & strengthen their economic, social & cultural characteristics, while retaining the right to take part in the political, fiscal, social & cultural life of the State" - after all, what is religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)beyond a cultural practice at a codified and organised level?

We think it would be legal if it just provided a basis for distinguishing legitimate religions from illegitamate religions for future resolutions, but any resolution that relied on it would be subject to a House of Cards violation. In any case, the current wording does not match the intention at all.

True.
I think that I could probably write a version that met this author's intentions in a legal way, but given the extreme improbability that any such proposal could ever get passed I'm not going to bother...

after all, what is religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)beyond a cultural practice at a codified and organised level?

;)
I've actually taken some religious studies classes, and wow.... you should see how they define religion: almost any ideological belief that defines reality is seen as a religion.... Which means, according to them, science itself, because it attempts to define reality under specific terms, would be seen as a modern religion with its own modern myths: like the Big Bang being its own personal creation myth. Nonetheless, it is a fascinating subject to study... and a quick glimpse at the wiki article seems to be defining religion using an anthropology definition (also a very fascinating field of study). :)

;)
I've actually taken some religious studies classes, and wow.... you should see how they define religion...We'd suggest you ask for a refund of your tuition. ;)

As for this proposal, perhaps a quote from one of our advisers is appropriate.If religion were outlawed, this problem would solve itself. Just send them in for medical treatment. After all, anyone who believes in some big invisible dude who can do anything is clearly nuts.The closest this body needs to get to determining whether any particular religion is "legitimate" is a stone's throw from that comet that someone is ranting about in one of the conference rooms.

Leetha Talone
Grumpy Ambassador to the UN

We'd suggest you ask for a refund of your tuition. ;)

As for this proposal, perhaps a quote from one of our advisers is appropriate. If religion were outlawed, this problem would solve itself. Just send them in for medical treatment. After all, anyone who believes in some big invisible dude who can do anything is clearly nuts. The closest this body needs to get to determining whether any particular religion is "legitimate" is a stone's throw from that comet that someone is ranting about in one of the conference rooms.

Leetha Talone
Grumpy Ambassador to the UN

*(remembers an occasion when Ottarkkus, the God of Compadria, actually manifested himself in the General Assembly during a debate...)*
;)

I'm pretty certain a large number of religions are all convinced theirs is the only true religion. Do you really want the UN to get involved in telling the various nutjobs out there their religion is not legitimate?
We certainly don't. We were merely extending a small effort to assist Central Anatolia in drafting something legal, and simultaneously avoiding the Archdruid giving us a further earful.

Religious squabbles? You seem to think that religion takes a back seat to politics, and you are very very wrong my friend. Religion is the building block of civilization, a country without religion is a morally bankrupt country.

How dare you insult our religion. Religion in Centeral Anatolia has been a uniting force throughout our history, we have prevented regional wars by appealing to the good nature of our Catholic brothers and sisters on many occasions.

I think from these quotes what we're seeing is really a desire to give religions some special status in the United Nations - religions the proposal author likes and considers "legitimate", specifically.

Getting beyond how fundamentally ridiculous it is to attempt to establish that any one religion has more validity or legitimacy than another, Kelssek as a secular and largely atheist (and therefore morally bankrupt) nation is strongly opposed to any special consideration being given for religious beliefs. Political, economic and social beliefs are not grounds for being exempt from any resolution, yet, whether it's belief in democracy, totalitarianism, fascism, capitalism, communism, socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-totalitarianism, Captain Planet Worship, etc., they generally have quite substantial and logically-driven bases. Why should belief in supernatural entities and that certain extremely old documents are completely flawlessly inerrant even be considered equal in importance, let alone be given special considerations?

Oh, because a lot of people believe in these organised superstitions. If only we could get exempted from free-trade resolutions, and capitalist nations could also be exempted from workers' rights resolutions, and dictatorships could get exempted from human rights resolutions too, then everyone would be happy and we'd all live in fun laughter peace and joy. Fortunately, this effort to exclude theocracies from any resolution they don't like is blatantly illegal, as it would be if you wanted to exclude any other beliefs from compliance. As far as I'm concerned, equal status with other sorts of beliefs is all religions are going to get and more than they deserve.

Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the UN
Recently emerged from lengthy "treatment" with tranquilisers.

We'd suggest you ask for a refund of your tuition. ;)


:D
ROTFLOL, maybe I should!!! ;)

*(remembers an occasion when Ottarkkus, the God of Compadria, actually manifested himself in the General Assembly during a debate...)*
;)And an especially impressive manifestation if memory serves. :D

If only we could get exempted from free-trade resolutionsBrother Lattener, join us in the Holy Universal Church of Trade Regulation and Liberal Thought Atheists welcome..

I'm thinking we could swing a "legitimate religion certificate" from the gnomes, and Sister Slaponna Tariff would be happy for an off-world posting.

*(remembers an occasion when Ottarkkus, the God of Compadria, actually manifested himself in the General Assembly during a debate...)*
;)

That's nothing, I remember when The Cute One manifested in the Stranger's Bar.

That's nothing, I remember when The Cute One manifested in the Stranger's Bar.

In the name of that Cute One, may It be praised.

Our Prophet has passed word to me that he has extended an invitation to the esteemed representatives of Centeral Anatolia, to hear from him in person the Word of the Cute One, so that they may judge for themselves whether our peoples' faith is legitimate.

We recommend bringing hiking boots and binoculars. The way to Mount Sanrio these days is treacherous, but surely the prospect of enlightenment is worth the risk of being stepped on by kaiju.