[PASSED] Repeal "Access to Science in Schools"

[Republic of Coldwater]

Fellow Delegates,

Coldwater is strongly opposed to repealing "Access to Science" For thousands of years, humanity has been relying on science to improve itself. Without science, there wouldn't be jets, spacecraft, and even that light in your house wouldn't exist if it wasn't for science. It makes perfect sense to add such a fundamental subject to human society to class and repealing this would simply make it harder for member states to improve their technology and society. Education is best dealt with at the national level, not the international level as nations are different and one resolution dealing with education may not work for all member states.

Thank you.

[Fellehad]

Fellehad notes that science does not in anyway contravene religion. At its core Science has yet to prove how it all strated. We can predict the behaviors of the world but can not explain the origin. Our best explanation is that at some point billions of years ago Nothing became Something. Fellehad notes that due to this inexplicable fact that science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

[Imperial States of the Empire]

Completely disagree with the resolution. Science is a basic fundamental necessity in life. Without the teaching of science we wouldn't have had great advancements in the medical and the architectural field.

[Trevinzetta]

Completely disagree with the resolution. Science is a basic fundamental necessity in life. Without the teaching of science we wouldn't have had great advancements in the medical and the architectural field.

This resolution isn't banning or discouraging science. It's merely removing the requirement that every government school teach it, whether it's necessary or not.

J. McKeynes,
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Republic of Trevinzetta

[Evidentia]

All careers and courses of study include some element of science, to a greater or lesser degree. People who only understand the specific processes of their work, but not WHY those processes work (which is the domain of scientific inquiry), will never be able to respond appropriately or adequately to unanticipated complications or unforeseen opportunities in their careers. Science is never irrelevant; vote "no" on this proposal.

[Terre Vieille]

Science can be an intrumental tool in an independent adult's life. To understand the world around one's self one needs to understand science. Without understanding people are just mindless drones going about their buisness without a clue as to the workings of the world.

[The Remean Lordship]

The problem that I have with this repeal is it allows nations to choose what theories to teach. This is a problem because it does not level the global playing field, but it also can force theocracy (in any form) upon people of nations. Thats what I am opposed to, as people should have a right to choose their own beliefs. Repealing this takes (in my nation's opinion) takes away this fundamental right of human choice.

PLEASE VOTE NO!!!

[Retired WerePenguins]

I would just like to remind everyone that this is the resolution they want repealed.

1. Inclusion of peer-reviewed science in schools’ curricula shall from now on be mandatory in public schools and schools that receive governmental aid.

2. Funding for such inclusion shall come from the national education budget and/or – upon request and/or acceptance – from nations willing to provide funding, related reading, human resources, or other resources deemed necessary according to the parties involved.

3. Private schools shall have full freedom to choose to teach or not to teach whatever peer-reviewed scientific theories they want, regardless of the W.A. nation they happen to be situated.

4. Whenever Religious views acknowledged as opposing peer-reviewed scientific theories are part of a school curriculum, the time allocated for teaching said peer-reviewed scientific theories in said schools shall be at least the same time that is allocated for said Religious views.

5. For greater clarity, religious views shall not in any way, shape, or form be banned from schools’ curricula by means of international law; however, individual nations shall retain full freedom to do so by means of national law.

6. For even greater clarity, exposure to scientific theories views shall never, ever be a vehicle – be it by objective of subjective means, or any other means – to force acceptance of scientific theories. Freedom of conscience is paramount, and a person can be exposed to scientific theories and reject them altogether for itself, without any negative consequences whatsoever in what regards a person’s public life.

The repeal consists of lies and balderdash.

Recognizing that many institutions of higher learning do not include peer-reviewed science in their curricula as it is irrelevant to the material being taught, such as:

graduate schools teaching law and business,

vocational schools teaching the vast majority of trades, such as locksmithing, piano tuning or tailoring, and

arts schools teaching the visual or performing arts,

But didn't I just quote ...

3. Private schools shall have full freedom to choose to teach or not to teach whatever peer-reviewed scientific theories they want, regardless of the W.A. nation they happen to be situated.

You mean a government run school of dance?
You mean a government run vocational school?

Never mind that the definition of school clearly does not cover either.

This is a close one. It is not too late. I would remind the delegates that when you walk through manure it's not a good idea to put your foot in your mouth. Vote NAY, today.

[Auralia]

You mean a government run school of dance?
You mean a government run vocational school?

Not government run, government funded.

[Dellin]

I would just like to remind everyone that this is the resolution they want repealed.

1. Inclusion of peer-reviewed science in schools’ curricula shall from now on be mandatory in public schools and schools that receive governmental aid.

2. Funding for such inclusion shall come from the national education budget and/or – upon request and/or acceptance – from nations willing to provide funding, related reading, human resources, or other resources deemed necessary according to the parties involved.

3. Private schools shall have full freedom to choose to teach or not to teach whatever peer-reviewed scientific theories they want, regardless of the W.A. nation they happen to be situated.

4. Whenever Religious views acknowledged as opposing peer-reviewed scientific theories are part of a school curriculum, the time allocated for teaching said peer-reviewed scientific theories in said schools shall be at least the same time that is allocated for said Religious views.

5. For greater clarity, religious views shall not in any way, shape, or form be banned from schools’ curricula by means of international law; however, individual nations shall retain full freedom to do so by means of national law.

6. For even greater clarity, exposure to scientific theories views shall never, ever be a vehicle – be it by objective of subjective means, or any other means – to force acceptance of scientific theories. Freedom of conscience is paramount, and a person can be exposed to scientific theories and reject them altogether for itself, without any negative consequences whatsoever in what regards a person’s public life.

The repeal consists of lies and balderdash.

Recognizing that many institutions of higher learning do not include peer-reviewed science in their curricula as it is irrelevant to the material being taught, such as:

graduate schools teaching law and business,

vocational schools teaching the vast majority of trades, such as locksmithing, piano tuning or tailoring, and

arts schools teaching the visual or performing arts,

But didn't I just quote ...

3. Private schools shall have full freedom to choose to teach or not to teach whatever peer-reviewed scientific theories they want, regardless of the W.A. nation they happen to be situated.

You mean a government run school of dance?
You mean a government run vocational school?

Never mind that the definition of school clearly does not cover either.

This is a close one. It is not too late. I would remind the delegates that when you walk through manure it's not a good idea to put your foot in your mouth. Vote NAY, today.

This needs to be sent far and wide.

I am so hoping for a flip on this ridiculous repeal attempt.

[The Roman Populus]

This is a disgrace.

[Wheeled States of Bifid]

Although I honored my duty as Delegate and voted in favor of this repeal I must state that I am strongly against it. The reasoning behind the repeal is little more than ideology and will leave our children at a disadvantage.

[Snuzztopia]

An understanding of science is a basic requirement of good citizenship. How is one to vote on scientific matters, or elect persons to manage these matters for them, without an understanding of the subject?

Unfortunately, this measure is being used to oppress the sciences in the name of religion. We in Snuzztopia are strongly against this.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

Unfortunately, this measure is being used to oppress the sciences in the name of religion. We in Snuzztopia are strongly against this.

The good Ambassador from Snuzztopia, like many others here, is arguing against a strawman, and with as much dogmatism as he imagines his opponents possess. Distinguished representatives, let us stick to the merits of this proposal, or rather the lack thereof, as the basis of our arguments.

[The Saint James Islands]

The ambassador from the Saint James Islands takes his seat in the debating chamber after eating a late meal of chicken wings.

I agree with the honourable Ambassador from the Eternal Kawaii, though I too am concerned about the theocratic bent of the Auralians. Nevertheless, I shall ignore such concerns and note that my opposition to this repeal comes from the arguments of the repeal and the contents of the target resolution. I have read and re-read the target resolution many times in the course of drawing up a replacement proposal, a drafting session for which I shall soon open. I have come to the conclusion that the concerns of the Auralian ambassador are misguided.

Remarking that the term "school" includes institutions of higher learning,

Recognizing that many institutions of higher learning do not include peer-reviewed science in their curricula as it is irrelevant to the material being taught, such as:

1. graduate schools teaching law and business,
2. vocational schools teaching the vast majority of trades, such as locksmithing, piano tuning or tailoring, and
3. arts schools teaching the visual or performing arts,

Since the word "school" was never defined in the target resolution, one would assume that it would be up to the nation in question to define for the purposes of compliance. If a nation wishes to exclude institutions of higher learning, a nation could reasonably pass a law doing so and still remain compliant with the letter and spirit of the law. Therefore, if this is the main concern of the ambassador, it is a fairly weak complaint. While for many other resolutions, a misdefined word would certainly be a claim for repeal, the word "school" was never misdefined, or even defined in the first place. Therefore, the Saint James Islands has lodged a vote AGAINST the repeal and has started to draft a replacement resolution in the event that this repeal does succeed.

[United States of SouthEast Asia]

The sciences are necessary for societal progress

Off course there are areas in schools that do not require too much of sciences, but even if that is the case, the sciences should and must remain a compulsory part of the education process.

The Right Honourable Benjamin Goh
Prime Minister of United States of SouthEast Asia
Minister for the National Reserves
Commander-in-Chief for the USSA Army

[Chester Pearson]

At the behest of Empress Beatrice and Prime Minister Jack Layston, I have been instructed to cast a vote of NAY for this repeal. While our vote will make little difference at this point, we feel we must still register our disgust for this pointless, and quite frankly ecclesiastical repeal of a perfectly acceptable resolution, that caused no harm, yet accomplished so much.

We do have the highest hopes that one of our esteemed colleagues has a replacement in the works, to renew the protections that are so needlessly being removed.

Warmest regards,

[Snuzztopia]

The good Ambassador from Snuzztopia, like many others here, is arguing against a strawman, and with as much dogmatism as he imagines his opponents possess. Distinguished representatives, let us stick to the merits of this proposal, or rather the lack thereof, as the basis of our arguments.

My support of secularism should not be perceived as dogmatism. Let it be noted that the intention of law matters as much as the written word of law. Is the intention not to gradually establish the dominance of religion over science?

[The Eternal Kawaii]

The good Ambassador from Snuzztopia, like many others here, is arguing against a strawman, and with as much dogmatism as he imagines his opponents possess. Distinguished representatives, let us stick to the merits of this proposal, or rather the lack thereof, as the basis of our arguments.

My support of secularism should not be perceived as dogmatism. Let it be noted that the intention of law matters as much as the written word of law. Is the intention not to gradually establish the dominance of religion over science?

Laws are not enforced according to their "intention", they are enforced according to the letter of the law. Again, the ambassador from Snuzztopia is attacking a strawman and not the real issue.

[The Saint James Islands]

The good Ambassador from Snuzztopia, like many others here, is arguing against a strawman, and with as much dogmatism as he imagines his opponents possess. Distinguished representatives, let us stick to the merits of this proposal, or rather the lack thereof, as the basis of our arguments.

My support of secularism should not be perceived as dogmatism. Let it be noted that the intention of law matters as much as the written word of law. Is the intention not to gradually establish the dominance of religion over science?

The Saint Jamesian ambassador very much agrees with you on the intentions of the Auralian ambassador. However, that is not the reason for our vote. I would urge the Ambassador from Snuzztopia to read the resolution up for repeal and decide his vote based on the merits and flaws of that resolution, not the intentions of the Auralian ambassador.

[Auralia]

Is the intention not to gradually establish the dominance of religion over science?

Uh, no.

[Jacobios]

As President of Jacobios, who is in favour of programs in the field of science I shall not against the repeal as I feel by funding our children in the sciences, it shall greater their knowledge to advance our nations.

[United Federation of Canada]

Is the intention not to gradually establish the dominance of religion over science?

Uh, no.

You are positive about that Mr. Russell?

[Auralia]

Uh, no.

You are positive about that Mr. Russell?

Yes. I would have thought that the repeal arguments made that very clear, and I strongly resent the assertions to the contrary.

[SverigeKins]

Strongly opposed.

As another ambassador stated, "The act does not infringe on religious rights in any way, shape, or form. The education of basic sciences should be required for every curriculum and it is necessary for a global government to enforce this. The world must be educated, and we can't stand idly by while children fail to be given a basic education."

The wording does not require advanced education to mandate science education, but requires institutions to offer science education.