NationStates Jolt Archive

This is admittedly a self-plug, but I wanted to ask what people thought of my last proposal:
Repeal "Religious Tolerance"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #19
Proposed by: The Master of Mankind

Description: UN Resolution #19: Religious Tolerance (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Fellow members of the United Nations, I urge you to repeal this resolution.

The UN exists to prevent war and genocide, and to serve as a forum for communication between nations. It does not exist to "support and promote a greater understanding
of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion." This resolution tacks on a meaningless duty that only forces the UN to spread itself so thin it becomes impotent.

Furthermore, we must recognize that there are clear differences between religions, and that not all religions are equal. Some form of Satanism that advocates torturing and killing thousands of people should not be tolerated and should not be considered in the same way as a peaceful religion.

Finally, it is not the duty of the UN to specifically oppose all wars fought in God's name. If Crusaders or Jihadis are waging a war to topple a genocidal regime, I contend that it is the duty of the UN to support these religious fighters.

PLEASE BE REASONABLE! REPEAL THIS RESOLUTION!

This seems to me to be the sort of thing that could generate some good debate on this forum, if anyone else is interested.

I'm pritty sure that this is a Branding Violation.


Putting "I" in the repeal is just not right.

I'm pritty sure that this is a Branding Violation.


Putting "I" in the repeal is just not right.

In fairness, "I" is only in the argument for repeal, not in the repeal itself. It's a rhetorical technique.

In fairness, "I" is only in the argument for repeal, not in the repeal itself. It's a rhetorical technique.

Does anyone happen to know if this is a valid argument (just for future reference)?

You really should get those "I's" out of there. They are referring to you (your nation). You're not allowed to reference your nation, your ambassador, your region or anything like that within a proposal text.

"I" is allowed, it's just bad form and casual.

We have to say, we disagree with almost all the arguments made in this repeal, and as such cannot recommend its support to anyone.

The UN exists to prevent war and genocide, and to serve as a forum for communication between nations. It does not exist to "support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion."
Incorrect. The UN exists to do what the UN chooses to do, within its legal limits. Preventing war and genocide, or to be more technically accurate wagging our fingers ineffectually at war while ameliorating its side-effects and prosecuting those who commit genocide, are things we currently choose to do. So are encouraging and regulating trade, individual freedoms and collective responsibilities, and, at present, religious freedom and tolerance. This argument is a nonsense in the face of reality.

Furthermore, we must recognize that there are clear differences between religions, and that not all religions are equal. Some form of Satanism that advocates torturing and killing thousands of people should not be tolerated and should not be considered in the same way as a peaceful religion.
It is fortunate for the author that the resolution on the Rights of Women and Minorities has just been struck down, because it contained an assertion directly contrary to this which would have rendered the repeal questionably legal.

Finally, it is not the duty of the UN to specifically oppose all wars fought in God's name. If Crusaders or Jihadis are waging a war to topple a genocidal regime, I contend that it is the duty of the UN to support these religious fighters.
Even if said religious fighters were proposing to establish a government even more bloodthirsty, at least in the short term, as that which they fought? We think not.

Incorrect. The UN exists to do what the UN chooses to do, within its legal limits. Preventing war and genocide, or to be more technically accurate wagging our fingers ineffectually at war while ameliorating its side-effects and prosecuting those who commit genocide, are things we currently choose to do. So are encouraging and regulating trade, individual freedoms and collective responsibilities, and, at present, religious freedom and tolerance. This argument is a nonsense in the face of reality.

On the contrary, the UN was established with very clear goals in mind. Yes, those goals may change: my argument, however, is that the UN was not created to handle things like religious toleration, and we should not casually tack on this duty.

It is fortunate for the author that the resolution on the Rights of Women and Minorities has just been struck down, because it contained an assertion directly contrary to this which would have rendered the repeal questionably legal.

Yes, but since (as you mentioned) that resolution has been struck down, anything it might have said against the current proposal is irrelevant.

Even if said religious fighters were proposing to establish a government even more bloodthirsty, at least in the short term, as that which they fought? We think not.

If that's their intent, the UN should oppose them because they're violating international law: not because they're religious fighters. To issue a blanket statement of disapproval towards all religious fighters indicates that the UN is out of touch with reality.

You really should get those "I's" out of there. They are referring to you (your nation). You're not allowed to reference your nation, your ambassador, your region or anything like that within a proposal text.

Just out of curiosity, is there some way to edit a submitted proposal?

Just out of curiosity, is there some way to edit a submitted proposal?

No. You can send a Getting Help report and ask to have it deleted so that you can re-submit the proposal after fixing it, though.

On the contrary, the UN was established with very clear goals in mind. Yes, those goals may change: my argument, however, is that the UN was not created to handle things like religious toleration, and we should not casually tack on this duty.You're right, the UN's goals are clear, they are,
The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest.
Oddly enough, I don't see anything about war and genocide in there. Are you sure you're not confusing us with that "other UN" (http://www.un.org/)?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You're right, the UN's goals are clear, they are,

Oddly enough, I don't see anything about war and genocide in there. Are you sure you're not confusing us with that "other UN" (http://www.un.org/)?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

If, in fact, "The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest" then there's still no problem. I am merely superimposing my view of what the UN should be onto my argument for this proposal. Of course, if we stick to this definition of what the UN is, then debate becomes pointless.

No. You can send a Getting Help report and ask to have it deleted so that you can re-submit the proposal after fixing it, though.

Thanks for the help, but I think it's too much trouble for something this small.

Just out of curiosity, I noticed that none of the proposals seem especially close to passing (I think the largest one has about half the votes required).

If by Friday none of them has the required votes, what happens? Does the one with the highest number go up (or am I just seriously confused about how this works)?

JIf by Friday none of them has the required votes, what happens? Does the one with the highest number go up (or am I just seriously confused about how this works)?
If they fail to reach quorum then nothing happens, they just expire.

On the contrary, the UN was established with very clear goals in mind. Yes, those goals may change: my argument, however, is that the UN was not created to handle things like religious toleration, and we should not casually tack on this duty.

But if toleration aids in the general propelling of the ideals of the NSUN and encourages cooperation between nations and peoples. Who are you to assume that it is not apart of our mission to keep toleration alive, if it does infact only aid the general mission of the United Nations?

Yes, but since (as you mentioned) that resolution has been struck down, anything it might have said against the current proposal is irrelevant.

Ah yes! But dear friend we are replacing it with an even more through resolution. I'd ask the repersentitive of Gobbannium to go to the new legislation post and ensure this issue is taken care of.

If that's their intent, the UN should oppose them because they're violating international law: not because they're religious fighters. To issue a blanket statement of disapproval towards all religious fighters indicates that the UN is out of touch with reality.

But if Nations of the UN are at war with each other, for any matter, isn't it within the oblegation of the United Nations to condemn the act of war itself in and of itself? Religious fighters are still instigators of war and should be condemned with all others.