A Ban on Theocratic Wars

[American Capitalist]

The World Assembly,

APPALED at the continued violent struggles and conflicts that can arise between religious groups and their different factions;

UNDERSTANDING that both religious and secular groups are going to conflict with each other in some way;

BELIEVING however that they should at least be able to tolerate each other and disagree without getting into a bloody war;

Hereby,

DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution;
• Religion, as a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects;
• Atheism, as a lack of belief in a supreme being or beings;
• Religious extremist; as an a person who has or plans to take violent measures in the name of their religion;
• Theocratic motive, as the need to disseminate and/or proliferate one's own spiritual beliefs or threaten the existence of an opposing set of spiritual beliefs through any force necessary;

PROHIBITS all member-nations and their citizens from declaring war or conducting a military operation with a theocratic motive at the heart of their endeavor:

REQUIRES nations to set up programs in order to educate and reform religious extremists;

URGES Religious and Atheistic groups to debate their differences in opinion through peaceful means;

EMPHASIZES that this resolution does not stop theocratic governments from declaring war it merely bans them from doing so for religious reasons.

It's an idea I've had for awhile now I'm not exactly sure what category to put it under at this time.

[Grays Harbor]

Our first reaction would be that this would constitute an ideological ban since it targets one specific group, and would therefore be quite illegal.

[Unibot]

BANS Religious or Atheistic groups or nations from declaring war on another Church or Atheistic group or nation because of disagreements on what’s real and what’s not or because of century old conflicts that still haven’t been resolved;

Well that's hardly fair, how'll about just...

Prohibits all member-nations and their citizens from declaring war or conducting a military operation with a theocratic motive at the heart of their endeavor:

Defining a 'theocratic motive' as the need to disseminate and/or proliferate one's own spiritual beliefs or threaten the existence of an opposing set of spiritual beliefs through any force necessary;

----

REQUIRES nations to set up programs in order to educate religious extremist about the error of their ways;

URGES Religious and Atheistic groups to debate their differences in opinion through peaceful means;

No progress is going to be made if we pass a resolution that boldly says that there is an 'error in their ways', how'll about promoting religious tolerance through funded programs for children, adults and whatnot to take part in with opposing religious members have to take part in the same program.

You also have to remember GA#2...

Article 4 § Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

... keep that in mind with every new draft, you can't take away a nation's right to self-defense.

[Quadrimmina]

Our nation must note that FoE would probably take care of this. Freedom to express oneself religiously should be upheld, and therefore individual member states should prevent theocratic wars on their own.

[American Capitalist]

BANS Religious or Atheistic groups or nations from declaring war on another Church or Atheistic group or nation because of disagreements on what’s real and what’s not or because of century old conflicts that still haven’t been resolved;

Well that's hardly fair, how'll about just...

Prohibits all member-nations and their citizens from declaring war or conducting a military operation with a theocratic motive at the heart of their endeavor:

Defining a 'theocratic motive' as the need to disseminate and/or proliferate one's own spiritual beliefs or threaten the existence of an opposing set of spiritual beliefs through any force necessary;

----

REQUIRES nations to set up programs in order to educate religious extremist about the error of their ways;

URGES Religious and Atheistic groups to debate their differences in opinion through peaceful means;

No progress is going to be made if we pass a resolution that boldly says that there is an 'error in their ways', how'll about promoting religious tolerance through funded programs for children, adults and whatnot to take part in with opposing religious members have to take part in the same program.

You also have to remember GA#2...

Article 4 § Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

... keep that in mind with every new draft, you can't take away a nation's right to self-defense.

I have added the suggestion I don't think this applies as it just stop nations from declaring war for ideological reason and does not prevent them from defending themselves.

Our first reaction would be that this would constitute an ideological ban since it targets one specific group, and would therefore be quite illegal.

It only stop theocratic nations or churches from declaring war on each other for ideological reasons. It does not stop them from declaring war in order to defend themselves.

[Goober Kingdom]

pointless in my view... then again, i'm not a member nation.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Why not just ban war among member-states, period?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

So George Bush cannot declare war on al-Qaida because it would be illegal to contend that Islamic extremism is a threat to civilization? Brilliant.

Until Bush declares that he only wants to go to war so that the trade of afghan blankets can continue unhindered.

Rule #1 for resolution drafting: make loopholes sneaky and hard to catch, not totally obvious to anyone that reads it.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

It seems to me this proposal creates more problems than it solves from an individual nations rights standpoint. I appreciate the spirit of it, but feel this might have problems generating support.

[Quadrimmina]

So George Bush cannot declare war on al-Qaida because it would be illegal to contend that Islamic extremism is a threat to civilization? Brilliant.

Until Bush declares that he only wants to go to war so that the trade of afghan blankets can continue unhindered.

Rule #1 for resolution drafting: make loopholes sneaky and hard to catch, not totally obvious to anyone that reads it.

We wonder how long it took the CSA to come up with that loophole.

It seems to me this proposal creates more problems than it solves from an individual nations rights standpoint. I appreciate the spirit of it, but feel this might have problems generating support.

The problem is in its enforcement, as the Kennyite delegation pointed out.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

Enforcement would be difficult, but the larger issue at work is the feelings this will generate from the religious right I feel.

[Quadrimmina]

Enforcement would be difficult, but the larger issue at work is the feelings this will generate from the religious right I feel.

Perhaps. Maybe a more symbolic resolution than a functional one would be better for such a noble goal. Of course, the religious right would not like that, but it would probably be a good thing to have. War over religion is counterintuitive to the WA's stance on religion.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

But you and I both know religion is the electrified third rail of politics. While religious war is counter to the WA's stance, involving the WA in this issue easily creates one mutually agreed upon bad guy which would be the WA. This one is better left alone than tampered with until such time as religion ceases to be such a hot button issue.

[Sanctaria]

Why not just ban war among member-states, period?

We'd have to repeal WA#2, I believe. Although that could just be my reading of it.

Yours.,

[Quadrimmina]

But you and I both know religion is the electrified third rail of politics. While religious war is counter to the WA's stance, involving the WA in this issue easily creates one mutually agreed upon bad guy which would be the WA. This one is better left alone than tampered with until such time as religion ceases to be such a hot button issue.

The problem with religion is that it is faith-based, and those who believe in it tend to believe strongly in it. This of course means that the only time people will stop considering it an important issue is when religion is eradicated. What the WA must do is protect the rights of people to worship as they choose, and protect the rights of people to not be persecuted by any person, organization, nation, or other entity due to their religious beliefs, including in war. Therefore, the WA should stand firmly against this. It may make them a bad guy to some people, but to others, we will be the guardians of freedom.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

I fully understand your point, but consider the ramifications the WA will face if we suddenly decide to act as referee in religious disagreements. In my eyes the one clear loser in any situation like that is the WA.

[Quadrimmina]

I fully understand your point, but consider the ramifications the WA will face if we suddenly decide to act as referee in religious disagreements. In my eyes the one clear loser in any situation like that is the WA.

Perhaps. However, just because the WA looks bad doesn't mean we shouldn't stand up for people of all religions.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

Again I agree with you, but in a worst case scenario its not simply a matter of the WA looking bad. It could mean the slow death of the WA. In that case would the world not be much worse for wear if the unified voice of the world were to cease to be?

[Quadrimmina]

Again I agree with you, but in a worst case scenario its not simply a matter of the WA looking bad. It could mean the slow death of the WA. In that case would the world not be much worse for wear if the unified voice of the world were to cease to be?

I suppose I see your point. However, if the religious right would be upset about this, then they would also be upset about...say...the resolution mandating that gay marriage be legal.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

That is a possible division, you're correct. I simply feel that this is an area we should not venture into.

[Vetok]

I have a question, a rather simple one. You see, this nation is a theocracy. However, we are a theocracy of atheism. Now, I would like to know if this would apply to my nation.

[Sanctaria]

I have a question, a rather simple one. You see, this nation is a theocracy. However, we are a theocracy of atheism. Now, I would like to know if this would apply to my nation.

That's quite the oxymoron. A Theocracy is a form of government where a god or deity is considered as the supreme ruler of the State or, alternatively, where the state officials are guided by divine inspiration.

If you're an atheist country, you can't be a Theocracy.

Yours.,

[Quadrimmina]

I have a question, a rather simple one. You see, this nation is a theocracy. However, we are a theocracy of atheism. Now, I would like to know if this would apply to my nation.

Just don't declare war on anyone with religious pretense and you're fine.

That is a possible division, you're correct. I simply feel that this is an area we should not venture into.

I understand. I suppose we shall see what other delegates have to say on the matter and go from there. However, this is protection of life we are talking about. Isn't the religious right typically for that?

[Vetok]

I have a question, a rather simple one. You see, this nation is a theocracy. However, we are a theocracy of atheism. Now, I would like to know if this would apply to my nation.

That's quite the oxymoron. A Theocracy is a form of government where a god or deity is considered as the supreme ruler of the State or, alternatively, where the state officials are guided by divine inspiration.

If you're an atheist country, you can't be a Theocracy.

Yours.,

Ooh, look, a link to the wikipedia article on theocracies. I guess I should read it, since I have no idea what a theocracy is, no? And yes, it is an oxymoron, isn't it? Yet we're still the home to a state church of atheism. Think 'The League of the Militant Godless', but so far gone they've inadvertently turned their atheism into a religion.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The WA is quite powerless to prevent wars from taking place. A peace agreement could be reached between member states but that would need to happen outside the WA, while the WA has no power to stop non-member countries from declaring a religious war on a member country, although GA#2 protects its right to defence and member states are free to ask other states to help. GA#14 is about neutrality of member states, although belligerents in question have to be member states to work.