NATION

PASSWORD

[Draft] The Right of Freedom of Religion

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Bergnovinaia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7314
Founded: Jul 26, 2009
Ex-Nation

[Draft] The Right of Freedom of Religion

Postby Bergnovinaia » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:13 pm

I am interested in any comments or suggestions that you have for this proposal.

The Right of Freedom of Religion

Category: Education and Creativity (???)
Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage (???)

The World Assembly,

Applauding that certain member states uphold religious values as part of their cultural heritage;

Recognizing the sovereign right of each member state to allow access of religion to its citizens;

Acknowledging that many member states do not have religion or outlaw certain religions;

Believing that allowing access of religion will benefit our world collectively;

Nonetheless, nations strongly encourage in all forms a media a certain religion;

Hereby,

1. Mandates that Member States shall:
a) Allow all citizens the right to choose their own religion;
b) May not kill or persecute any citizen for their religion or religious pursuits;

2. Emphasises that this Resolution does not change a member state's rights to:
a) Allow science or creationism in schools (provided it does not conflict with past resolutions).
b) Restrict or censor religions that would either a) cause a political uprising or b) cause a religious war internally in said nations.
I am pursuing my undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University in Psychology and Spanish. My goal in life is to be a marriage and family counselor. If you have questions about me or my life, just ask!

My girlfriend and I blog about Christian & general marriage, relationship, and dating advice!

NS member since 2009. WA Resolution Author (mostly all repealed), NS sports fanatic.

User avatar
Tanaara
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1179
Founded: Feb 27, 2005
Ex-Nation

Re: [Draft] The Right of Freedom of Religion

Postby Tanaara » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:21 pm

"Illegal I belive, given that it acts as an ideological ban."
The mathematical probability of a common cat doing exactly as it pleases is the one scientific absolute in the world. -Lynn M. Osband

"We're not so blase, not so willing to accept that we're safe and we can let someone do our security for us. We're not going to sit there and wait for somebody else to do it because if you wait, it might be too late." Jennifer Allen re: Northwest Airlines Flight 253 - quoted for the Win!

User avatar
Bergnovinaia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7314
Founded: Jul 26, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: [Draft] The Right of Freedom of Religion

Postby Bergnovinaia » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:23 pm

Tanaara wrote:"Illegal I belive, given that it acts as an ideological ban."


How is it an idealogical ban. Isn't more openig up then banning?
I am pursuing my undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University in Psychology and Spanish. My goal in life is to be a marriage and family counselor. If you have questions about me or my life, just ask!

My girlfriend and I blog about Christian & general marriage, relationship, and dating advice!

NS member since 2009. WA Resolution Author (mostly all repealed), NS sports fanatic.

User avatar
Buffett and Colbert
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32382
Founded: Oct 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: [Draft] The Right of Freedom of Religion

Postby Buffett and Colbert » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:26 pm

Bergnovinaia wrote:
Tanaara wrote:"Illegal I belive, given that it acts as an ideological ban."


How is it an idealogical ban. Isn't more openig up then banning?


It in effect bans the opportunity not to open up opportunities. If that makes sense...
If the knowledge isn't useful, you haven't found the lesson yet. ~Iniika
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Clever, but your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

His Jedi mind tricks are insignificant compared to the power of Buffy's sex appeal.
Keronians wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:My law class took my virginity. And it was 100% consensual.

I accuse your precious law class of statutory rape.

User avatar
Bergnovinaia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7314
Founded: Jul 26, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: [Draft] The Right of Freedom of Religion

Postby Bergnovinaia » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:28 pm

Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Bergnovinaia wrote:
Tanaara wrote:"Illegal I belive, given that it acts as an ideological ban."


How is it an idealogical ban. Isn't more openig up then banning?


It in effect bans the opportunity not to open up opportunities. If that makes sense...


That was a bit confusing but after reading over it I think I get what your trying to say. So is their anyway to make this proposal work or is it a waste of time?
I am pursuing my undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University in Psychology and Spanish. My goal in life is to be a marriage and family counselor. If you have questions about me or my life, just ask!

My girlfriend and I blog about Christian & general marriage, relationship, and dating advice!

NS member since 2009. WA Resolution Author (mostly all repealed), NS sports fanatic.

User avatar
Tanaara
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1179
Founded: Feb 27, 2005
Ex-Nation

Re: [Draft] The Right of Freedom of Religion

Postby Tanaara » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:47 pm

"I'm not sure there is" The UnDelegate looked thoughtful then spoke slowly "See what you are proposing bans theocracies, where the religion and it's clergy either are the government or control those who hold the governmental posts. And this proposal would make them have to open up, allow if you will other religions, thus making them no longer theocracies"

So that is why I'd say that it is an ideological ban, also there are many nations that have and allow only a single religion, or have a state religion, who aren't exactly theocracies but would vehemently oppose having to allow other religions within their nations."

He shrugged "But I'm not an expert on this, someone else might know better than I if this fits the illegality of 'ideological ban'

"I mean, personally I'm all in favor of freedom of religion, but I just know that many are not. Look at all the religious hate mongering that goes one, even among some supposedly free and tolerant WA members."

User avatar
Bergnovinaia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7314
Founded: Jul 26, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: [Draft] The Right of Freedom of Religion

Postby Bergnovinaia » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:58 pm

Tanaara wrote:"I'm not sure there is" The UnDelegate looked thoughtful then spoke slowly "See what you are proposing bans theocracies, where the religion and it's clergy either are the government or control those who hold the governmental posts. And this proposal would make them have to open up, allow if you will other religions, thus making them no longer theocracies"

So that is why I'd say that it is an ideological ban, also there are many nations that have and allow only a single religion, or have a state religion, who aren't exactly theocracies but would vehemently oppose having to allow other religions within their nations."

He shrugged "But I'm not an expert on this, someone else might know better than I if this fits the illegality of 'ideological ban'

"I mean, personally I'm all in favor of freedom of religion, but I just know that many are not. Look at all the religious hate mongering that goes one, even among some supposedly free and tolerant WA members."


Perhaps I could change it and rename the proposal The Right of Nations to have religion. The proposal could ban criticsm of religous nations by other nations. Or maybe that would still be illegal. Huh?
I am pursuing my undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University in Psychology and Spanish. My goal in life is to be a marriage and family counselor. If you have questions about me or my life, just ask!

My girlfriend and I blog about Christian & general marriage, relationship, and dating advice!

NS member since 2009. WA Resolution Author (mostly all repealed), NS sports fanatic.

User avatar
Gynocracy
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 435
Founded: May 12, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: [Draft] The Right of Freedom of Religion

Postby Gynocracy » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:00 pm

Gynocracy's delegate calls for this resolution to be thrown out as the only permitted form of worship in our country is that of the Sacred Church of Her Magnificence Queen Saint Linda.

We cannot allow alternative beliefs in our own country though we have no problem with other nations worshipping as they please.
'Femina supra mundum' - Women over the world.

User avatar
Urgench
Minister
 
Posts: 2345
Founded: May 21, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: [Draft] The Right of Freedom of Religion

Postby Urgench » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:09 pm

OOC perhaps you should check out the list of passed resolutions, a couple of the things you seem involved with are already legislated for, freedom of religion is well covered by the Freedom of Expression act and the CoCR two name just two.
- Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador in Plenipotentiary to the World Assembly for the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench -

Exchange Embassies with the CSKU here - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=67

Learn more about Urgench here- http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Buffett and Colbert
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32382
Founded: Oct 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: [Draft] The Right of Freedom of Religion

Postby Buffett and Colbert » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:15 pm

Bergnovinaia wrote:
Tanaara wrote:"I'm not sure there is" The UnDelegate looked thoughtful then spoke slowly "See what you are proposing bans theocracies, where the religion and it's clergy either are the government or control those who hold the governmental posts. And this proposal would make them have to open up, allow if you will other religions, thus making them no longer theocracies"

So that is why I'd say that it is an ideological ban, also there are many nations that have and allow only a single religion, or have a state religion, who aren't exactly theocracies but would vehemently oppose having to allow other religions within their nations."

He shrugged "But I'm not an expert on this, someone else might know better than I if this fits the illegality of 'ideological ban'

"I mean, personally I'm all in favor of freedom of religion, but I just know that many are not. Look at all the religious hate mongering that goes one, even among some supposedly free and tolerant WA members."


Perhaps I could change it and rename the proposal The Right of Nations to have religion. The proposal could ban criticsm of religous nations by other nations. Or maybe that would still be illegal. Huh?


No because that would ban "atheiocracies."
If the knowledge isn't useful, you haven't found the lesson yet. ~Iniika
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Clever, but your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

His Jedi mind tricks are insignificant compared to the power of Buffy's sex appeal.
Keronians wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:My law class took my virginity. And it was 100% consensual.

I accuse your precious law class of statutory rape.

User avatar
New Xania
Envoy
 
Posts: 348
Founded: Jul 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: [Draft] The Right of Freedom of Religion

Postby New Xania » Mon Aug 10, 2009 5:23 pm

As a theocracy this proposal would ban my government and destroy my nation.

User avatar
Kelssek
Minister
 
Posts: 2302
Founded: Mar 19, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: [Draft] The Right of Freedom of Religion

Postby Kelssek » Tue Aug 11, 2009 5:23 am

New Xania wrote:As a theocracy this proposal would ban my government and destroy my nation.


So how can you possibly have survived all this time having to observe the Charter of Civil Rights? You know, the passed resolution which says:

All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system

Or, if you've been killing people because of their religion, the Convention Against Genocide bans that too:

Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation.

Granted, I've just shown that this proposal's effective clauses duplicate existing resolutions, but by the same token, you coming out and saying "oh no this will destroy my government" is just silly.

User avatar
New Xania
Envoy
 
Posts: 348
Founded: Jul 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: [Draft] The Right of Freedom of Religion

Postby New Xania » Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:38 pm

Kelssek wrote:
New Xania wrote:As a theocracy this proposal would ban my government and destroy my nation.


So how can you possibly have survived all this time having to observe the Charter of Civil Rights? You know, the passed resolution which says:

All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system

Or, if you've been killing people because of their religion, the Convention Against Genocide bans that too:

Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation.

Granted, I've just shown that this proposal's effective clauses duplicate existing resolutions, but by the same token, you coming out and saying "oh no this will destroy my government" is just silly.

State enforced propaganda. We aren't denying people their rights, we're just telling them their beliefs are wrong and because of this the people who don't follow the state religion make up less then half of a percent of the population which is too small too matter.

User avatar
Bergnovinaia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7314
Founded: Jul 26, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: [Draft] The Right of Freedom of Religion

Postby Bergnovinaia » Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:40 pm

I'm not going to submit this so don't get all concerned.
I am pursuing my undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University in Psychology and Spanish. My goal in life is to be a marriage and family counselor. If you have questions about me or my life, just ask!

My girlfriend and I blog about Christian & general marriage, relationship, and dating advice!

NS member since 2009. WA Resolution Author (mostly all repealed), NS sports fanatic.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads