NationStates

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.

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

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?

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...

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'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."

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?

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

I'm not going to submit this so don't get all concerned.