NationStates Jolt Archive

We feel this is an infringement on our rights to govern as we see fit, we are a Monastic state founded by Monks, Ruled by the Lords Laws and Servants, we cannot tolerate such an abomination onto our rights to teach as we see fit, we ask all to go to the UN Proposal and vote for it as to overturn such a resolution.

Description: UN Resolution #101: Right to Learn about Evolution (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: UNDERSTANDING The original intent of this resolution, to force all UN Member Nations to teach evolution in schools.

STATING that such micromanaging by the UN of our education system, forced upon a nation is an utter infringement upon all nations rights to Govern as they See fit.

FURTHER NOTING that this resolution forces nations to teach evolution and harshly penalizes those whom do not accept such a theory, and that is all it is a theory there is no solid proof that evolution actually happened.

CONCLUDING that this resolution is an infringement on sovereignty, and that all antions may teach what they see fit in there public education systems, this Resolution strikes Resolution 101 Null and Void.

We feel this is an infringement on our rights to govern as we see fit, we are a Monastic state founded by Monks, Ruled by the Lords Laws and Servants, we cannot tolerate such an abomination onto our rights to teach as we see fit, we ask all to go to the UN Proposal and vote for it as to overturn such a resolution.

Description: UN Resolution #101: Right to Learn about Evolution (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: UNDERSTANDING The original intent of this resolution, to force all UN Member Nations to teach evolution in schools.

You are mistaken, Enania. First and foremost, the only thing the original resolution actually forces members to do is "...discourage the suppression of this grand unifying theme called evolutionary theory," keep teachers of the theory "free from imprisonment and persecution," and to give a "strong symbolical disapproval against any member state that persists to physically imprison / punish teachers or students for engaging in evolutionary studies." Nowhere in the legislation does it force any member to actually teach it. If the teachers or students don't want it, it isn't taught.

Sidenote: The Congress personally feels the author was so afraid of hurting someone's feelings that he went to absurd lengths to make it clear evolution would not be a mandatory school of thought. How disgraceful.

FURTHER NOTING that this resolution forces nations to teach evolution and harshly penalizes those whom do not accept such a theory, and that is all it is a theory there is no solid proof that evolution actually happened.
Again, I'm afraid you're mistaken. No piece of the resolution calls for any punishment; the worst things it provides are making sure we are actually following the resolution and to give "disapproval" towards those who are not.

Vokhuz Kon
Travda UN Chief Delegate

You can't use National Sovereignty as an arguement for a repeal, so the concluding part would have to go.

Kari Kagrosi
UN Pirate

As a Terranist, I personally support repealing this 'right' to teach a 'theory' known as 'evolution'.

As a scientist, it is quite obivous that the world was created in 2002 by Max Barry. I mean, it even said so in the UN Charter. That why the NSUN once approved "Max Barry Day" after all. We see no real need to endorse such a faulty, dumb, and WRONG theory of evolution. (Do not, I mean, DO NOT use that as a reason. Meta-gaming is illegal.)
---Dr. Bob

You can't use National Sovereignty as an arguement for a repeal, so the concluding part would have to go.
You can, you just can't use it as the only argument.

"The children of Setswana never understood this whole evolution thing," the ambassador said with a small yawn; "We couldn't care less if this resolution was here or not, since having it means we still have the right not to teach it, and not having it means we have the right not to teach it as well.

You want a repeal? Fine, but a UN voting probably costs tremendous amounts of money and time, also keeping other proposals in queue, so you'll have to come up with more convincing arguments. It's like the measuring system resolution: as long as it's there a nation has the freedom to do otherwise, yet when it's gone there's room for a more binding resolution."

"yet when it's gone there's room for a more binding resolution."
No, there isn't, because trying to pass a more binding resolution on this subject now would contradict the UN Educational Aid Act...

"Hmm, was that resolution even legal without a repeal of this Evolution resolution?"

Yes, it was, because its author included the necessary disclaimer (which I've placed in bold in the quotation below).



6. Entrusts nations with the right and responsibility to decide on the structure of their public education systems and the role of private institutions, mandatory, encouraged and prohibited subjects, skills and course elements in educational institutions, and the financing of educational programs, subject to previous UN legislation still in effect;

"Hmm, was that resolution even legal without a repeal of this Evolution resolution? Anyway, I must admit you are absolutely right and my humblest apologies for responding without studying all available literature.

Still, our previous stance is still accurate, namely that there is no effect on the Setswana education whatsoever, and that running a Repeal through the UN costs time, (money) and queue space."