NationStates Jolt Archive

I was posed with the issue of religion in my nation today. It asked me if i wanted to outlaw religion etc. Personally i think religion (in real life) causes a lot of problems and if everyone just thought about helping eachother rather than pleasing an entity no-one can truly prove existed the world would be a better place. But if i took it away it would infringe human rights.... Hmmm. So in real life, what would you rather have religion or lose the right to believe in what you like?:confused:

People sometimes test my belief that we should all be free to believe whatever we like. But I console myself with the fact that people who believe such monumentally stupid things are great for making fun of.

Religion without a doubt

But you have to admit that some religions or minorities within religions take it too far. what if the government compromised?

But you have to admit that some religions or minorities within religions take it too far. what if the government compromised?

Can you give an example?

But you have to admit that some religions or minorities within religions take it too far. what if the government compromised?

That's not a problem with religion, that's a problem with people.

You must have freedom of religion. It is impossible to force people to believe in something they do not and the opposite is true too. Trying to force people to stop believing in their religion will only cause worse problems. Besides, not all religious people cause problems. My grandparents are pretty dedicated Catholics and they seem harmless enough. :P

Can you give an example?

Like allowed you to pray etc. but only to an extent that any nonsense caused by religion will result in punishment?

You must have freedom of religion. It is impossible to force people to believe in something they do not and the opposite is true too. Trying to force people to stop believing in their religion will only cause worse problems. Besides, not all religious people cause problems. My grandparents are pretty dedicated Catholics and they seem harmless enough. :P

Lol, how do you know they arent bank robbers in disguise :p

Like allowed you to pray etc. but only to an extent that any nonsense caused by religion will result in punishment?

Nonsense?

Unrest. bombs, executions, even wars. btw these arent neccesarily things i believe in, just thoughts. i dont believe peoples right to belief should be taken away.

Nonsense?

Clarity is evidently an underrated virtue these days.

Unrest. bombs, executions, even wars. btw these arent neccesarily things i believe in, just thoughts. i dont believe peoples right to belief should be taken away.

All these things happen without religion. Further, all these things are already illegal, unless you're the government.

Unrest. bombs, executions, even wars. btw these arent neccesarily things i believe in, just thoughts. i dont believe peoples right to belief should be taken away.

I'm confused by this. You want to use the banning of religious acts (arbitrarily chosen by you) as a preventative measure against already illegal acts?

All these things happen without religion. Further, all these things are already illegal, unless you're the government.

Yes but most occur becuase of extremists who take their religion as an excuse to kill others. without religion they have no excuse.

I would love for there to be no (or very little-- on the level of people who believe they've been abducted by UFOs, and just as mocked) religion in the world. I would be overjoyed. However, I would never use the power of the government to try to force people to forsake it, just like I would never use the government to try to force people that there is no Bigfoot.

I'm confused by this. You want to use the banning of religious acts (arbitrarily chosen by you) as a preventative measure against already illegal acts?

Kinda, its a main motive. Yes theyre already illegal but taking away the motive is more effective than punishment. if both are used, thats even better.

Freedom of thought over pointless oppression that will never, ever achieve anything and will only make the problem far, far worse.

Freedom of thought over pointless oppression that will never, ever achieve anything and will only make the problem far, far worse.

Fair enough. I do not disbelieve you.

Like allowed you to pray etc. but only to an extent that any nonsense caused by religion will result in punishment?

Punishment to whom?

Yes but most occur becuase of extremists who take their religion as an excuse to kill others. without religion they have no excuse.

Yes they will. Hateful violent people will always find an excuse, be it religion, or race, or hair colour.

I think Frank Herbert wrote "Every human being needs some kind of religion."

Whether we call a belief a religion or just a framework/premise for scientific thought doesn't really matter to me. I firmly believe that active missionary work will always prove to be detrimental to the targeted human beings, as history has demonstrated many times over. Therefore, I am for a freedom of religion and a prohibition of active mission.

On the question of iconoclasm, I am convicted that voicing critique of religious ideologies can prove to be an incentive to spiritual and philosophical betterment of a religion, if only by way of making its apologetic branch more acute. I am against allowing people to disturb actual religious ritual.

In a nut shell: freedom of religion - yes; freedom of active mission - no; freedom of voicing disapproval of religion in general or of an individual religion - yes; freedom to disturb private or public religious performance and worship - no.

freedom to disturb private or public religious performance and worship - no.

What do you count as disturbance?

What do you count as disturbance?

I haven't given this much thought, but I remember that we learned about a freedom of iconoclasm in some PR China constitution (complementing the freedom of religion in PR-Chinese constitutional law - it may be abolished by now like the freedom to hang those huge red banners [dazibao] in the streets), and that freedom covered actually destroying ritual paraphernalia and even sites of worship. Basically, this meant every one was free to worship and to hijack prayer services and stage a protest against that specific religion. Of course, as it works out in China, constitutional rights and freedoms aren't necessarily practiced the way they might be in the US. I would count as disturbance a protest alongside a funeral service in the immediate vicinity of the gravesite or a protest outside a mosque, temple, synagogue or church, let alone inside the building (which is usually private property anyway, so this would also be considered trespass to land, probably, unless of course there is a constitutional right to enter the building for such a purpose), and, naturally, any measure or action of or intended to have a more incisive effect.

Basically, I would allow any form of ridicule or protest which does not immediately interrupt the actual performance of worship or ritual, as for example the publication of cartoons, satires, newspaper articles and columns, books, the staging of plays and other pieces of performing art, and the presentation of any kind of art in general. There may also be no restriction on the scientific or academic discussion of religion.
Inflammatory speech (in German, the word is Volksverhetzung, which is basically defined as speech intended to incite an audience to violent or criminal behavior against members of ethnic, cultural, social or religious minorities) doesn't necessarily fall into that category, but I expect that to be excluded from the scope of the freedom of speech anyhow, without view to its potential iconoclastic effect.

Yes but most occur becuase of extremists who take their religion as an excuse to kill others. without religion they have no excuse.
Any excuse will do. Extremism comes TO religion, not FROM it. Eliminating or restricting religion will not eliminate or restrict extremists in any way at all.


As to the OP, I personally believe that every human being has the absolute right to take themselves to hell any way they like, and since I put it that way, I suppose I have to maintain freedom of religion. As an additional, slightly more serious, point, I also believe that religion is private and, therefore, not the business of the state. If the government has an interest in setting an example of approved behavior for model citizens, it could do worse than set an example of how to mind one's own business.

Freedom of religion is part of freedom of thought, just as people have the freedom to lock themselves in their houses and never come out except to pick up the groceries that get delivered once a week.
Banning religion under the auspice of 'freedom of thought' is like banning books because they change peoples opinions. Or do we just ban books that are pro-religion?
I mean, if religion is illigal, its obvious that anybody with a pro-religious point of view would be a religious person, and therefore in violation of the law.

Its nicely Orwellian, isnt it? I can just imagine the new Ministry of Correct Thought buildings going up in every town.

Yes but most occur becuase of extremists who take their religion as an excuse to kill others. without religion they have no excuse.

Not really...

There's been plenty of this sort of crap, and it's got nothing to do with religion, and there has in fact been a substantial amount of it in the last century that has had nothing to do with religion. The crimes of Nazism, Soviet and Maoist Communism, and nationalism cost humanity millions of lives, trillions of dollars and gave us some of the most gruesome insights into the human being.

This has picked up some interesting views and it looks like some people have gone through a whole thesaurus to look for the right words.
Thanks for your views people, and if you have anymore, keep them coming.

Anyhow, i read earlier on that extremism comes to religion not from. Well this is part true, but nowadays they tell youngsters that they are killing in the name of their lord (whoever it may be). There are probably lots of solutions to this. I just thought that eradiction of religion would be useful as it would stop some religions discriminating against others eg. Catholcism vs. protestantism etc. I admit, you cant make everyone the same and poeple do dicrimate against hair colour skin colour and other things, but lately it has been mostly to do with religion. eg. discrimination agaisnt jews. I also heard ealier every human being has a religion. i tihnk it would be better put as belief, but i think (not sure) that you included science as a belief. I dont count this as a beleif, as a majority of scientific "beleifs have been proven.

So in real life, what would you rather have religion or lose the right to believe in what you like?:confused:

That is not exactly the choice. Freedom of religion, at least organized religion, is only one part freedom of conscience. It also implies protection for a multiplicity of institutions, associations, events, and so forth.

So theoretically a society could say, "We don't care what you believe in your minds and hearts or what rituals you follow in the privacy of your own home, but the public consequences of certain kinds of religious belief are extreme enough to justify restricting the public manifestations of that religion--like religious services and schools."

I think such policies might be justified in places where strong fundamentalist movements serve as serious threats to the basic elements of liberalism and democracy. Of course, in such places, justified or not, implementing such a policy is likely to be unwise in the extreme.

I was posed with the issue of religion in my nation today. It asked me if i wanted to outlaw religion etc. Personally i think religion (in real life) causes a lot of problems and if everyone just thought about helping eachother rather than pleasing an entity no-one can truly prove existed the world would be a better place. But if i took it away it would infringe human rights.... Hmmm. So in real life, what would you rather have religion or lose the right to believe in what you like?:confused:

I'd rather have religion given those choices

Religion creates freedom. Removing that freedom removes freedom itself.

Religion creates freedom. Removing that freedom removes freedom itself.

OK, I'll bite, how exactly does religion* create freedom





* a set of rules which limit what you are allowed to do

This has picked up some interesting views and it looks like some people have gone through a whole thesaurus to look for the right words.
Thanks for your views people, and if you have anymore, keep them coming.

Anyhow, i read earlier on that extremism comes to religion not from. Well this is part true, but nowadays they tell youngsters that they are killing in the name of their lord (whoever it may be). There are probably lots of solutions to this. I just thought that eradiction of religion would be useful as it would stop some religions discriminating against others eg. Catholcism vs. protestantism etc. I admit, you cant make everyone the same and poeple do dicrimate against hair colour skin colour and other things, but lately it has been mostly to do with religion. eg. discrimination agaisnt jews. I also heard ealier every human being has a religion. i tihnk it would be better put as belief, but i think (not sure) that you included science as a belief. I dont count this as a beleif, as a majority of scientific "beleifs have been proven.

First of all, "lately" and "nowadays"?

Second of all, You're funny. There is a German saying: throwing out the baby with the bathwater. People are discriminated against because of their religion and your solution is to forbid religion completely? Instead of unequal treatment, let's treat everyone equally bad.

Third of all, I think you referred to my Frank Herbert quote. I'd have put belief in there as well, but I didn't want to change the quote. Although I'm not sure. Maybe it was actually "belief" not "religion". In any way, I don't think he was using "religion" in the institutional sense but denoting a belief or system/framework of beliefs. Science is based on such a belief or premise.

The definition of a premise is a fundamental principle which asks to be accepted without proof of its veracity being possible. That definition is almost identical to that of a belief. A belief is a statement of faith where the person believing choses to adopt it as truth without first looking to find proof for its veracity. The only difference between a premise and a belief is that a belief will very often find its reason in itself whereas a premise is usually required as the basis for an argument or discussion.

There are quite a few conventions and premises, the natural sciences presupose. Scientists consciously or unconsciously accept these premises while they are very much debated within and outside academic circles. Such premises are that of the objective observability and measurability of nature or the possibility of communication (with which Wittgenstein had lots of issues). For an immensely long time, science (and theology) both adhered to the premise of the existence of an absolute truth. We still believe in causation. An objectivist like Ayn Rand will tell you that without the acceptance of the premise that there is one single objective truth, there can be no reasonable, ie scientific or logical discussion. The entirety of objectivism is built upon that little pebble of a premise. Most people nowadays aren't of the objectivist persuasion. I find this to be extremely annoying as it makes discussion so much more complicated.

The fact is that no scientific theory (which, if I understood you, is a scientific "belief") can ever be empirically proven to be true. It can only be proven to be false. Any experiment that is ever conducted is a durability test for the entirety of science.

In "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis tertius" Borges writes about a world where the theory of causation is considered scientific "heresy". In that world, science simply does not accept the premise that, if you hold a coin in the palm of your hand, then open your hand, then hear a "pling" noise, then observe a coin lying on the floor, that coin is the same you held in your hand before.

In our world, we accept causation because it is the simplest/safest explanation we can think of. Take this text. If we didn't accept that the reason for the existence of this text in this thread is that I thought of it, tiped it and submitted it to the thread, we'd have to stipulate that I may have thought of it, then I may have tiped random letters, then I randomly pressed a "submit"-button, then magically the letters formed on your computer screen, without us being able to sensibly explain why this text formed at that moment in exactly that place and seems to answer your entry. The theory of causation is a convenient premise, but we cannot prove it directly, just confirm that it is not disproved yet. It remains what you call a scientific belief.

Saying that, I am not trying to put down science. I think it is far more sensible to believe in causation then to believe that someone walked on water or that the same person turned water into wine. It is far more sensible to believe that the Earth came into existence billions of years ago, that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth and that humans evolved from something else then to believe that somebody sprinkled huge bones and fossils all over this planet to test or tempt us. But there is no way I could ever prove one or the other. Therefore, and for no other reason, science and institutionalized religion (religion stricto sensu?) are both - at times competing - systems of belief (ie religions late sensu?).

I do recognize that usually, when we talk about the freedom of religion, we do not refer to the freedom to believe in scientific fact. It has been noted in this thread, though, that the internal freedom of religion (as opposed to the external freedom of religious practices) is a part of the freedom of philosophy (Weltanschauung) and a sister of the freedom of conscience (Gewissen). Revoking the freedom of religion wouldn't necessarily mean enforcing atheism or agnosticism. It could very well mean the establishment of a state church. In that case, the enforced belief would risk overriding scientific fact in case of conflict. A restriction of the freedom of religion can have repercussions in the field of natural sciences. Therefore, there is no reason to exclude science from the scope of the freedom of religion.

From what I have learned in my AP European History class, history shows that attempting to force everyone in a nation to follow one,government approved belief system leads to only one thing:trouble and instability. During the time of the Reformation and Religious Wars, only one country practiced religious tolerance,the Dutch, while the others didn't. This time period also happened to be the Dutch golden age.Coincidence?No.

1.In France, the Hugenots/Protestants were for the most part creating a civil war, and due to the St.Bartholemew Day Massacre, fighting for their lives. This didn't end till Henry IV converted to Catholicism and signed the Edit of Nantes, allowing some religious freedom. Civil wars a golden age does not make.

3.Philip II (Catholic) was trying to enforce his rule over the Dutch (Protestant/Calvinist), and sent nice armada to England that was utterly destroyed. Yeah, good reign but Spain lost quite a bit of its power.

England was also having some problems, but it got sorted out under Elizabeth I. Again, there was some moderate religious toleration. Coincidence that Elizabeth's reign was a golden age?No.

All this talk is to show that historical example shows that attempting to enforce a single belief system on the people will cause trouble. Also, banning religion probably won't stop religious extremist.They probably will fight back even harder. If someone is entrenched in their beliefs, they won't give them up without a fight.

You have to admit though, if it wasn't for religious values, many of the laws we have today in the world wouldn't have come into being. Such as in America and Europe where Christian values affected society and culture, some were bad, but most were good.
Besides if there isn't a God then what is there to live for?

You have to admit though, if it wasn't for religious values, many of the laws we have today in the world wouldn't have come into being. Such as in America and Europe where Christian values affected society and culture, some were bad, but most were good.
Right, because without religion we'd be incapable of figuring out that harming other people is a bad thing. :headbang:

Besides if there isn't a God then what is there to live for?

The joy of living? Seriously, are you so devoid of friends that you cannot bear the thought of life if there is no DID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_personalities) suffering supernatural being?

You have to admit though, if it wasn't for religious values, many of the laws we have today in the world wouldn't have come into being.

True. Mostly awful ones.

most were good.

Undoubtedly some Christian values are good. But those are not exclusive to Christianity, or to religion in general. The fact that we can identify them as good while criticizing other Christian values as bad is one indication of this--we must have a different standard.

Besides if there isn't a God then what is there to live for?

If there is a God, what is there to live for? Meek servility?

Not seeing a whole lot of difference between religion and the loss of freedom

Believe whatever you like.

DO what is legal.

That is, you may hold in your heart any darned belief that makes you happy, but you may not act on that belief if the acts (such as the aforementioned bombings) are illegal.

if it wasn't for religious values, many of the laws we have today in the world wouldn't have come into being.
Such as...?

Besides if there isn't a God then what is there to live for?
Many people seem quite content to live for pleasure. Others seek knowledge, spiritual enlightenment (oh yes, quite possible w/o god(s); Google Zen or Taoism), or the improvement of humanity (which means different things to different people).

You have to admit though, if it wasn't for religious values, many of the laws we have today in the world wouldn't have come into being. Such as in America and Europe where Christian values affected society and culture, some were bad, but most were good.
Besides if there isn't a God then what is there to live for?

I'm sorry, but this sort of pretentiousness just plain pisses me off.

RANT AHEAD. Offense may be taken, so long as it is paid for.




The only things religion contributed to the world were reasons to hate, reasons to divide, and reasons to oppress. Nothing good came from religion, good things were mixed in with hate to make it palatable to people like yourself.

Christian values? Yes. Of course. Right.
"OUTLAW EVERYTHING I DON'T LIKE BECAUSE MY IMAGINARY FRIEND SAYS YOU SHOULD OUTLAW EVERYTHING I DON'T LIKE BECAUSE..."
Bah. Most were good, riiiight. Keep thinking that. As for laws, you're right. Thanks to religion, America has sodomy laws that allow certain states to take away a gay couple's kid(s) if they go to said state until they leave. Yes. Such great laws religion has given us.


Oh yes, and plenty of nations can live just fine without desperately needing the acceptance of a nonexistent wizard and their fanclubs because they are too feeble-minded to realize the security blanket they have.



END RANT.



Just... ugh.

I would never outlaw religion, but in my ideal world it just wouldn't exist.

Religion isn't the only 'limiting' thing out there. You have Laws that also restrict what people can say, do and even act. You also have Ideals that can also be restricting. lifestyles and such. so one cannot focus on just Religion.

But you have to admit that some religions or minorities within religions take it too far. what if the government compromised?

like say... as long as the Government doesn't force people to either participate or restrict any form of worship, nor doesn't favor any one or few religions out there, people are free to worship or not worship as they choose?

Yeah, that would be nice.

I would rather have a world full of idiots believing whatever invincibly ignorant trash they wanted than to have my right to believe what I wanted abrogated. You take the bad with the good - it's easier to argue with idiots than to have to keep your opinions to yourself.

But I console myself with the fact that people who believe such monumentally stupid things are great for making fun of.
Publicly. Repeatedly. Here, for example.

Besides if there isn't a God then what is there to live for?
Soverignty?
Personal responsibility?
Success?
Accomplishment?
Soul?
Purpose?
Any/all.
To invert your question ... if there isn't a god, why shouldn't you kill yourself?
I guess your living circumstances would hinge upon proving it, eh?

That's not a problem with religion, that's a problem with people.

Which is why we need to outlaw people.

Which is why we need to outlaw people.
Many, many places in the world have some degree of law enforcement to qualify this.
In fact, the U.S. extroverts that principle as well, although it lags much behind a few other popular countries in the world.
t'in s

Which is why we need to outlaw people.

Exactly, that's what i did in my country, that's why i'm the only person in my country (well i passed a law saying i wasn't a person),1 to 0 finances are okay but you know the workers just don't want to work, and just don't care about taxes, they love them because i get all the money i make from me! The best country is one with yourself.:)

Exactly, that's what i did in my country, that's why i'm the only person in my country (well i passed a law saying i wasn't a person),1 to 0 finances are okay but you know the workers just don't want to work, and just don't care about taxes, they love them because i get all the money i make from me! The best country is one with yourself.:)
I was just reviewing your country's sexual abuse reports ... :eek:

I was just reviewing your country's sexual abuse reports ... :eek:

didn't you hear the phrase "the Left Hand not knowing what the Right Hand is doing"? :p

didn't you hear the phrase "the Left Hand not knowing what the Right Hand is doing"? :p

:eek:
Is it a nation of "gladhands"?
Do they have a "jury of peers"?
What IS their "long arm of the law" doing, anyway?
:eek:

meh, I don't think outlawing religion would do much good. I would rather just eliminate religion from the government, the things it sponsors (schools for instance) and the law.

:eek:
Is it a nation of "gladhands"?
Do they have a "jury of peers"?
What IS their "long arm of the law" doing, anyway?
:eek:

please stop with the innuendo, it's killing me:D, "left arm not knowing what the right is doing" that is funny.
Well you know my country believe in a soul too, it's very close to the ground ever heard of the phrase "thinking on your feet"? that's why you look after your shoes, they're so close to your soul, lol, well it isn't really sexual abuse in my country as there is only one person it's more a mass of....well i don't think i want to lower this thread to that level but, "gladhands"lol, my foriegn policy consists of the mighty trade links with Tesco, and various stores, and even communication with other nations (well it's really people but meh same thing in my country)

please stop with the innuendo, it's killing me :D
I think we can stop, gracefully, right about there.
But only if you want to. :D

I think we can stop, gracefully, right about there.
But only if you want to. :D

well some people in the House of well my flat say we should stop, but other parts argue it's only fair to listen to other people's views. Then i told them to shut up about it and stop being silly, yes more innuendo, "long arm of the law":) that's just plain wrong, wrongness all over, but think about it a country with just one person, no conflict, unlikely chances of civil war.:) Of course there is a mass drinking that goes on on certain days, that renders my country helpless in the hands of the deadly "hangover", huge protests have started to stop the advance of the ill effects but some systems in the government just don' care about the body, and just want to appease other nations.:)

some systems in the government just don' care about the body, and just want to appease other nations.:)

:eek:
YAY! Commerce!!!!

well some people in the House of well my flat say we should stop, but other parts argue it's only fair to listen to other people's views. Then i told them to shut up about it and stop being silly, yes more innuendo, "long arm of the law":) that's just plain wrong, wrongness all over, but think about it a country with just one person, no conflict, unlikely chances of civil war.:) Of course there is a mass drinking that goes on on certain days, that renders my country helpless in the hands of the deadly "hangover", huge protests have started to stop the advance of the ill effects but some systems in the government just don' care about the body, and just want to appease other nations.:)

Guess I can't chip in about "Stiff" penalties for law breakers...

and if you argue with yourself... who puts in the tie breaking vote?

:eek:
YAY! Commerce!!!!

Well you don't want to hear about the potential issues, of some parts of the arms and liver wanting independance from the rest of the country, i mean think about it the hand is the most abused part of the human anatomy. so it follows it want's to get away from the insane orders of the brain.:) As for the liver well it complains that it dosen't get the same meida attention as say the face but OH NO the face is always the most important part. In the plea for independance the hands have formed a coalition with the shoulders, but they say they can take the strain anyway so why should the hands depart. The eyebrows are attempting peace talks with their similar counterparts of the hairy arms, but they don't last very long, and the diplomats dissapear off the face of the nation which concerns the other hairs very much.
It could be argued that the brain is thoughtless and doesn't care for the body and a possible revolution might have take place, but before this great nation that issue was solved by adaptation to the environment, to allow the body 8 hours of sleep every day, but recently new issues arise as sometimes this important piece of legislation (written in the holy book of genetics:)).
Well those are some of the issues explained yet one part which seems to never see the light of day are the often spoke of "feet", take the strain of the entire nation, yet work tirelessly, plodding one foot after the other, should revolution occur to gain support of the feet is vital. yet the Brain has plans of using outside help with other nations to help with 'crutches'.
That's only a few problems in this great nation, want to hear more?

Guess I can't chip in about "Stiff" penalties for law breakers...

and if you argue with yourself... who puts in the tie breaking vote?

the much valued "instinct" is often spoken of in hushed voices, for no nation truely can prove it's existance except through the body's actions.

Well you don't want to hear about the potential issues, of some parts of the arms and liver wanting independance from the rest of the country, i mean think about it the hand is the most abused part of the human anatomy. so it follows it want's to get away from the insane orders of the brain.:) As for the liver well it complains that it dosen't get the same meida attention as say the face but OH NO the face is always the most important part. In the plea for independance the hands have formed a coalition with the shoulders, but they say they can take the strain anyway so why should the hands depart. The eyebrows are attempting peace talks with their similar counterparts of the hairy arms, but they don't last very long, and the diplomats dissapear off the face of the nation which concerns the other hairs very much.
It could be argued that the brain is thoughtless and doesn't care for the body and a possible revolution might have take place, but before this great nation that issue was solved by adaptation to the environment, to allow the body 8 hours of sleep every day, but recently new issues arise as sometimes this important piece of legislation (written in the holy book of genetics:)).
Well those are some of the issues explained yet one part which seems to never see the light of day are the often spoke of "feet", take the strain of the entire nation, yet work tirelessly, plodding one foot after the other, should revolution occur to gain support of the feet is vital. yet the Brain has plans of using outside help with other nations to help with 'crutches'.
That's only a few problems in this great nation, want to hear more?
What is the common currency? Did i miss that? What are your "spendings" based on? :p
Oh, and this ...
I'm always thinkin' 'bout it
I don't know what I'd do without it
I love, I really love
My pancreas

My spleen just doesn't matter
Don't really care about my bladder
But I don't leave home without
My pancreas

My pancreas is always
There for me
Ahh-oooh

Secreting those enzymes (bap bap bap)
Secreting those hormones too
Metabolizing carbohydrates
Just for me

Ba-ba ba ba-ba ba ba ba-ba ba
My pancreas
Ooooooh

My pancreas attracts every other
Pancreas in the universe
With a force proportional
To the product of their masses
And inversely proportional
To the distance between them

Woo woo woo woo

Don'tcha you know you gotta
Flow, flow, flow, pancreatic juice
Flow, flow, into the duodenum

Can't you see I love my pancreas
{Lipase, amylase, and tripsin}
(Insulin, glucagon)
(Won'tcha flow flow flow, pancreatic juice)
Golly-gee I love my pancreas
{They gonna help with our digestion}
(Comin' from the islets of Langerhans...)
(Flow flow, into the duodenum)

Well you don't want to hear about the potential issues, of some parts of the arms and liver wanting independance from the rest of the country, i mean think about it the hand is the most abused part of the human anatomy. so it follows it want's to get away from the insane orders of the brain.:) As for the liver well it complains that it dosen't get the same meida attention as say the face but OH NO the face is always the most important part. In the plea for independance the hands have formed a coalition with the shoulders, but they say they can take the strain anyway so why should the hands depart. The eyebrows are attempting peace talks with their similar counterparts of the hairy arms, but they don't last very long, and the diplomats dissapear off the face of the nation which concerns the other hairs very much.
It could be argued that the brain is thoughtless and doesn't care for the body and a possible revolution might have take place, but before this great nation that issue was solved by adaptation to the environment, to allow the body 8 hours of sleep every day, but recently new issues arise as sometimes this important piece of legislation (written in the holy book of genetics:)).
Well those are some of the issues explained yet one part which seems to never see the light of day are the often spoke of "feet", take the strain of the entire nation, yet work tirelessly, plodding one foot after the other, should revolution occur to gain support of the feet is vital. yet the Brain has plans of using outside help with other nations to help with 'crutches'.
That's only a few problems in this great nation, want to hear more?

wait... so if a nation wants to break away... for example, the tonsils... what procedure do you use? Popular vote? The Scalpel? what?

and should you get injured... who patches you up? since you declared yourself a 'non-person' does that mean you have to go to the vet? and who opperates on you?

What is the common currency? Did i miss that? What are your "spendings" based on? :p
Oh, and this ...

Ah, well the common currency is the "red blood cell", currently trade goes very well, but on occiason, when breathing from the lungs is stopped trade slows down rapidly, but current funds are devoted to developing a system that doesn't rely on the lungs, which although have worked in the past, there is no guarantee they will work forever (however sceptics dissmiss this idea).:)

Well now spendings can change from different residents saving up enough blood cells to buy more of the body (currently the best views are from the brain, yet there are many restricting hidden factors, stopping the residents from say the feet in gaining property in the brain), but plans are underway to create a new eye in the belly, but groups in the brain try to stop this plan from going ahead, as they say current research is based on meaningless claptrap.:)
Now going back to the "Red blood cell", obviously this is open to being stolen by the dreaded 'nurse nations' who want our precious blood currency for other nations, who are in dire need of support, some groups say yes we should give aid as the liver can take the strain as long as no more than 1 pint is taken and lots of water is taken in.
But slowing this work is the viruses which can corrupt and have destroyed many fine nations, which is why alot of spending is increasing in the latest 'white blood cell' department, some supporters say they can take out almost any virus, while others point out that these findings are based on research by other nations of unknown location so why should we believe in them.:)

Ah, well the common currency is the "red blood cell", currently trade goes very well, but on occiason, when breathing from the lungs is stopped trade slows down rapidly, but current funds are devoted to developing a system that doesn't rely on the lungs, which although have worked in the past, there is no guarantee they will work forever (however sceptics dissmiss this idea).:)

Well now spendings can change from different residents saving up enough blood cells to buy more of the body (currently the best views are from the brain, yet there are many restricting hidden factors, stopping the residents from say the feet in gaining property in the brain), but plans are underway to create a new eye in the belly, but groups in the brain try to stop this plan from going ahead, as they say current research is based on meaningless claptrap.:)
Now going back to the "Red blood cell", obviously this is open to being stolen by the dreaded 'nurse nations' who want our precious blood currency for other nations, who are in dire need of support, some groups say yes we should give aid as the liver can take the strain as long as no more than 1 pint is taken and lots of water is taken in.
But slowing this work is the viruses which can corrupt and have destroyed many fine nations, which is why alot of spending is increasing in the latest 'white blood cell' department, some supporters say they can take out almost any virus, while others point out that these findings are based on research by other nations of unknown location so why should we believe in them.:)

It truly is a bummer that sigs are limited to 8 lines. :p

wait... so if a nation wants to break away... for example, the tonsils... what procedure do you use? Popular vote? The Scalpel? what?

and should you get injured... who patches you up? since you declared yourself a 'non-person' does that mean you have to go to the vet? and who opperates on you?

hmmm your words cause much alarm to my peoples, as the tonsils up until now have not considered leaving, as they feel very attached to the mouth (a vital importer of goods and materials).
Well some advocates for removal of dangerous parts of the body suggest foreign aid is necessary, while others point out we need to develop new programmes to allow some parts of the body to leave when necessary.
If the nation suffers damage alot of our currency is spent on patching the main bodywork, but if there is too much damage then foreign aid is vital to repairwork for important sectors specifically the brain and vital organs.
But on occiason the decision makers in the brain have no idea and follow where other nations go to the great ideal of the 'hospital', where it's claimed an awful lot of work has been done to help other nations in the past, so should any calamity befall this mighty nation, the 'hospital' is the place to be.

hmmm your words cause much alarm to my peoples, as the tonsils up until now have not considered leaving, as they feel very attached to the mouth (a vital importer of goods and materials).
Well some advocates for removal of dangerous parts of the body suggest foreign aid is necessary, while others point out we need to develop new programmes to allow some parts of the body to leave when necessary.
If the nation suffers damage alot of our currency is spent on patching the main bodywork, but if there is too much damage then foreign aid is vital to repairwork for important sectors specifically the brain and vital organs.
But on occiason the decision makers in the brain have no idea and follow where other nations go to the great ideal of the 'hospital', where it's claimed an awful lot of work has been done to help other nations in the past, so should any calamity befall this mighty nation, the 'hospital' is the place to be.

Oh no, I'm not saying that anyone wants to leave. I'm just posing a Hypothetical. so no need to watch out for renegate parts...

what do you do if...say a part's growth exceeds it's place in the nation. wouldn't that be a cancerous and altogether dangerious situation?

Oh no, I'm not saying that anyone wants to leave. I'm just posing a Hypothetical. so no need to watch out for renegate parts...

what do you do if...say a part's growth exceeds it's place in the nation. wouldn't that be a cancerous and altogether dangerious situation?

Well some liberal elements in the Brain say we should encourage growth of various parts of the body, (citing previous experiences of 'growing up') But some conservative elements say this is madness, letting parts of the body grow on their own would isolate this nation from trade talks with others.
But the Liberals point out the "who cares" theory which suggests if there were no other nations growth would occur as it liked the need for trade wouldn't be needed.
So currently the nations policy involves the 'hospital' similar to your UN, but better funded and has nicer people except for the dreaded nurse nations (it's important to say at this point, that this can be considered racist language, by other nations who have stronger links with the 'nurse nations', and say they help many other nations, but sceptics again say the very concept of taking our money is ridiculous).
{god i'm good at this, it's so fun, oh and sorry for hijacking the thread but well i was getting attention from other nations, i mean people}

You must have freedom of religion. It is impossible to force people to believe in something they do not and the opposite is true too. Trying to force people to stop believing in their religion will only cause worse problems. Besides, not all religious people cause problems. My grandparents are pretty dedicated Catholics and they seem harmless enough. :P
Agreed. As much as I dislike religion, I would agree that coercion against it is not justified.