NationStates

Dawn Kingdom wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote: "We have. We remain unconvinced that your approach is more beneficial than harmful. And this delegation represents a nation famously hostile to the religious."

1.) Yes my nation is quite hostile to the religion,
2.) I don't want religious people to mess up my nice ruling system,
3.) I don't want religious hypocrites to have too much influence,
4.) I only care for stability, NOT the cost for stability.

...And yet you are willing to merge government and religion into a single entity according to clauses 1 and 3...?

Dawn Kingdom wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote: "We have. We remain unconvinced that your approach is more beneficial than harmful. And this delegation represents a nation famously hostile to the religious."

1.) Yes my nation is quite hostile to the religion,
2.) I don't want religious people to mess up my nice ruling system,
3.) I don't want religious hypocrites to have too much influence,
4.) I only care for stability, NOT the cost for stability.

"Ambassador, referred to my delegation. My nation is particularly hostile to religion. My nation still thinks this is a bad policy. Do you just not understand my when I speak? Do I need to speak in shorter, simpler phrases?"

Separatist Peoples wrote: "Ambassador, referred to my delegation. My nation is particularly hostile to religion. My nation still thinks this is a bad policy. Do you just not understand my when I speak? Do I need to speak in shorter, simpler phrases?"

Why don't you understand that this is the only practical and good way of resolving this issue. Or how to you propose faith authority to go down. Maybe we should ask the pope to give up his large influence?! Sarcasm, but in all seriousness you want to decrease power of religon, yet you don't want to act radically. Question, why?

Dawn Kingdom wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote: "Ambassador, referred to my delegation. My nation is particularly hostile to religion. My nation still thinks this is a bad policy. Do you just not understand my when I speak? Do I need to speak in shorter, simpler phrases?"

Why don't you understand that this is the only practical and good way of resolving this issue. Or how to you propose faith authority to go down. Maybe we should ask the pope to give up his large influence?! Sarcasm, but in all seriousness you want to decrease power of religon, yet you don't want to act radically. Question, why?

"Because I respect both rights and quality drafting. Because I believe procedure is as important as substance. And, ambassador, because I don't believe you even understand the concept of practicality."

Dawn Kingdom wrote:IC: His Grace is greatly concerned that most of the nations in comment section dissaprove the proposal, furthermore his grace is thinking about how much of political stability would this proposal bring to our world and asks other nations to see the proposal with his eyes.

"Hello, Your Grace. It is wonderful to finally speak with you! It, perhaps, gives me the opportunity to shed further light on why the majority disapproves. For this I will not go into the structural issues in the proposal's clauses on an individual basis, as many have spoken to those. Instead, let me illuminate for Your Grace the structural issues underpinning the proposal as a whole.

One. The Republic, along with the majority of the world, do not agree with the belief that weakening religious influence in society would increase political stability. For many nations, religion is a stabilizing agent, not one of harm. A resolution that targets religion thusly needs to have a stronger series of arguments than are present here, and needs to state objective truths that make the subjective moral and philosophical arguments involved have some baseline truths to venture off of.
Two. The Republic, and many other states, do not necessarily believe in the restrictions of freedom present in the underpinning of this proposal as beneficial to our populace. There is no inherent stabilization effect in the restrictions present and can have a negative loop of societal feedback that can drastically increase unrest and radicalization. And all of that doesn't get into the moral arguments in favor of freedoms this proposal restricts.

Perhaps Your Grace should consider a different path, as the one chosen is fraught, full of dangers, and only leads to rejection and harm. If you would only embrace the values of harmony through kindness, loyalty, honesty, generosity, laughter, and the magic of friendship, perhaps you would find friends instead of enemies behind every door. The light of such True, True Friends can be a beacon in the dark, and lead the aptly named Dawn Kingdom into the light of a new era. Have a Harmonious day," Ambassador Twilight Sparkle wrote, her quill swiftly writing the missive even as she believed it foolhardy. Still, who would she be, if not hopeful for every creature large and small?

Dawn Kingdom wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote: "We have. We remain unconvinced that your approach is more beneficial than harmful. And this delegation represents a nation famously hostile to the religious."

1.) Yes my nation is quite hostile to the religion,
2.) I don't want religious people to mess up my nice ruling system,
3.) I don't want religious hypocrites to have too much influence,
4.) I only care for stability, NOT the cost for stability.

Then that's your nation's own issue, isn't it? Or have you no sovereignty at all and are merely a puppet of the masses of other nations?

Secularization enforced by international law contradicts the democratic will of the people of our nation. The voting public doesn't want to elect religious leaders because that is not the true or traditional means of doing so. This resolution would be an overreach of the authorities afforded to the World Assembly and therefore we oppose this, gravely.

Dawn Kingdom wrote:Why don't you understand that this is the only practical and good way of resolving this issue.

Because it really isn't.

Dawn Kingdom wrote:Maybe we should ask the pope to give up his large influence?!

RL reference.

Dawn Kingdom wrote:you want to decrease power of religon, yet you don't want to act radically. Question, why?

Because radical solutions tend to suck, and never reach quorum or pass the general vote.

Nationalist Gold Union wrote:Secularization enforced by international law contradicts the democratic will of the people of our nation. The voting public doesn't want to elect religious leaders because that is not the true or traditional means of doing so. This resolution would be an overreach of the authorities afforded to the World Assembly and therefore we oppose this, gravely.

"Democracy is not a beneficial tool in and of itself. Democracy is only good insofar as it brings about beneficial end. Populism unchecked is as dangerous as authoritarianism unchecked."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Nationalist Gold Union wrote:Secularization enforced by international law contradicts the democratic will of the people of our nation. The voting public doesn't want to elect religious leaders because that is not the true or traditional means of doing so. This resolution would be an overreach of the authorities afforded to the World Assembly and therefore we oppose this, gravely.

"Democracy is not a beneficial tool in and of itself. Democracy is only good insofar as it brings about beneficial end. Populism unchecked is as dangerous as authoritarianism unchecked."

"Of course, populism unchecked tends to be more fun to watch than authoritarianism unchecked. I know which I'd rather have."

Dawn Kingdom wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote: "Ambassador, referred to my delegation. My nation is particularly hostile to religion. My nation still thinks this is a bad policy. Do you just not understand my when I speak? Do I need to speak in shorter, simpler phrases?"

Why don't you understand that this is the only practical and good way of resolving this issue. Or how to you propose faith authority to go down. Maybe we should ask the pope to give up his large influence?! Sarcasm, but in all seriousness you want to decrease power of religon, yet you don't want to act radically. Question, why?

Religious authorities do not have more political influence than anyone else. If they do in your country, perhaps you should reconsider your approach.

Linux and the X wrote:

Dawn Kingdom wrote:
Why don't you understand that this is the only practical and good way of resolving this issue. Or how to you propose faith authority to go down. Maybe we should ask the pope to give up his large influence?! Sarcasm, but in all seriousness you want to decrease power of religon, yet you don't want to act radically. Question, why?

Religious authorities do not have more political influence than anyone else. If they do in your country, perhaps you should reconsider your approach.

IC: "I'd like to visit Dawn Kingdom to see firsthand the clear problems they have with religion, but I seriously fear for my life if I did, and not on account of religion..."

Dawn Kingdom wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote: "Ambassador, referred to my delegation. My nation is particularly hostile to religion. My nation still thinks this is a bad policy. Do you just not understand my when I speak? Do I need to speak in shorter, simpler phrases?"

Why don't you understand that this is the only practical and good way of resolving this issue. Or how to you propose faith authority to go down. Maybe we should ask the pope to give up his large influence?! Sarcasm, but in all seriousness you want to decrease power of religon, yet you don't want to act radically. Question, why?

Of all the possibilities in the multiverse that the WA is comprised of, I highly doubt this is the only way to solve an issue that really isn't an issue.

Lord Dominator wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Democracy is not a beneficial tool in and of itself. Democracy is only good insofar as it brings about beneficial end. Populism unchecked is as dangerous as authoritarianism unchecked."

"Of course, populism unchecked tends to be more fun to watch than authoritarianism unchecked. I know which I'd rather have."

OOC: Yes, because the French Revolution and subsequent reign of terror were an absolute hoot. I mean, who doesn’t love watching people tortured and having their heads lopped off?

(Yes, I know your statement was IC, but I had to point that out)

Grays Harbor wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:"Of course, populism unchecked tends to be more fun to watch than authoritarianism unchecked. I know which I'd rather have."

OOC: Yes, because the French Revolution and subsequent reign of terror were an absolute hoot. I mean, who doesn’t love watching people tortured and having their heads lopped off?

(Yes, I know your statement was IC, but I had to point that out)

OOC: Better than the thousand years of suffering the Third Estate had lived through before the French Revolution.

The New California Republic wrote:

Linux and the X wrote:Religious authorities do not have more political influence than anyone else. If they do in your country, perhaps you should reconsider your approach.

IC: "I'd like to visit Dawn Kingdom to see firsthand the clear problems they have with religion, but I seriously fear for my life if I did, and not on account of religion..."

1.) You are quite right to fear, you'd be seized in very first possible moment,
2.) I have absolute control over citizens, cause I know what is best for them,
3.) Fortunately, religion isn't big problem in my nation, but worldwide it quite is.

Dawn Kingdom wrote:3.) Fortunately, religion isn't big problem in my nation, but worldwide it quite is.

Do you have any actual evidence for that? I mean, your proposal is a massive overreaction to the the problem, but it doesn't seem like the problem even exists.

Dawn Kingdom wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:IC: "I'd like to visit Dawn Kingdom to see firsthand the clear problems they have with religion, but I seriously fear for my life if I did, and not on account of religion..."

1.) You are quite right to fear, you'd be seized in very first possible moment,
2.) I have absolute control over citizens, cause I know what is best for them,
3.) Fortunately, religion isn't big problem in my nation, but worldwide it quite is.

Is this resolution enforce in your own country at present, Ambassador?

Liberimery wrote:

Dawn Kingdom wrote:
1.) You are quite right to fear, you'd be seized in very first possible moment,
2.) I have absolute control over citizens, cause I know what is best for them,
3.) Fortunately, religion isn't big problem in my nation, but worldwide it quite is.

Is this resolution enforce in your own country at present, Ambassador?

"Ambassador, you know it is."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Liberimery wrote:Is this resolution enforce in your own country at present, Ambassador?

"Ambassador, you know it is."

"And a great deal more besides it seems..."

OOC: Well, the OP has ceased to exist, so I guess that this farce ends here.

The New California Republic wrote:OOC: Well, the OP has ceased to exist, so I guess that this farce ends here.

[OOC: Well, Sofia *did* basically tell their ambassador that his genocide advocacy would earn him a demonstration of Project Starstorm (a Kermanic Orbital Kinetic Bombardment Weapons System not officially acknowledged by the Jebslund government and categorically denied by all government officials as preposterous rumors and lost weather balloons. The tests in an uninhabited wasteland in Jebslund's desert region were reported as swampgas explosions. I'll get around to writing that factbook at some point.]

I guess our missiles worked, then.

Comes in listening to music on his MP3 play while humming along to the joyous anthem about a bunch of little guys who were happy that their evil tyrant queen of supernatural origin was deposed by a courageous freedom fighter from a distant land and judicious use of a domicile. He plucks his earbuds out, and looks around, " Did I miss something important?"

Noticing the empty seat, "Ah. Terrible shame. I was just about to call for an investigation for egregious violations of WA resolutions."

The New California Republic wrote:OOC: Well, the OP has ceased to exist, so I guess that this farce ends here.

He only was deated