A Ban on Theocratic Wars

[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.,

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.

Yes, a link! Because you're the only one in this debate who is reading every post! Heaven forbid someone reading a debate about Theocracy not know what it is!

You don't get it though, you need a God or Deity to be a Theocracy. Atheism has neither.

Yours.,

[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.

Yes, a link! Because you're the only one in this debate who is reading every post! Heaven forbid someone reading a debate about Theocracy not know what it is!

You don't get it though, you need a God or Deity to be a Theocracy. Atheism has neither.

Yours.,

I like how you didn't read any of my second post after that first line. So, shall we just leave it at that? You know, just to satisfy your view of how I should play my nation, I'll say Richard Dawkins is my god. Read the rest of my second post, then TG me if you want to continue this debate you've created.

[Glen-Rhodes]

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

I honestly wouldn't be against that. Rights and Duties has more flaws than it does graces.

[Freeoplis]

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

This Nation believes that an appropriate way around this legislation would be to declare war for some other reason. If a religious grouping declared war on another but didn't say it was for a religious motive but for example an economic one then they would quite clearly be doing nothing illegal. This legislation will be void of any use through shrewd planning of war and declaring motives for it.

[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.,

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.

Yes, a link! Because you're the only one in this debate who is reading every post! Heaven forbid someone reading a debate about Theocracy not know what it is!

You don't get it though, you need a God or Deity to be a Theocracy. Atheism has neither.

Yours.,

I like how you didn't read any of my second post after that first line. So, shall we just leave it at that? You know, just to satisfy your view of how I should play my nation, I'll say Richard Dawkins is my god. Read the rest of my second post, then TG me if you want to continue this debate you've created.

No, I read your post but I'm just stating facts. Atheism is the direct opposite to Theism, which gives it's name to Theocracy. Atheism, as I'm sure you know, is the rejection of belief in any deity, which as I'm sure you also know, a Theocracy must have to be be a Theocracy.

Now I'm not saying you don't know any of this, all I'm saying is that saying your nation is a Theocracy of Atheism is an oxymoron and can't happen. I want to leave this discussion here as it has very little relevence to the thread.

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

<br style="text-shadow: none;">I honestly wouldn't be against that. Rights and Duties has more flaws than it does graces.

I agree with you there. Are you going to write a repeal up? Or should someone else do it.

[Quadrimmina]

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

This Nation believes that an appropriate way around this legislation would be to declare war for some other reason. If a religious grouping declared war on another but didn't say it was for a religious motive but for example an economic one then they would quite clearly be doing nothing illegal. This legislation will be void of any use through shrewd planning of war and declaring motives for it.

Hence why we feel a symbolic resolution is more significant than a functional one.

[American Capitalist]

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

This Nation believes that an appropriate way around this legislation would be to declare war for some other reason. If a religious grouping declared war on another but didn't say it was for a religious motive but for example an economic one then they would quite clearly be doing nothing illegal. This legislation will be void of any use through shrewd planning of war and declaring motives for it.

Hence why we feel a symbolic resolution is more significant than a functional one.

Are there any resolutions promoting Religious Tolerance on the books?

[Sucrati]

I'm sorry, but this would go against the 'Separation of Church and State' in many countries, your basically telling people that the government is allowed to stop religious people from fighting one another (a war doesn't have to result in violence)

Basically you would be banning wars but don't discriminate on just theocracy, you are discriminating against the Theocratic Governments as well, because if they go to war, they wouldn't be able to attack or defend against anyone that attacks them, just saying.

[Quadrimmina]

I'm sorry, but this would go against the 'Separation of Church and State' in many countries, your basically telling people that the government is allowed to stop religious people from fighting one another (a war doesn't have to result in violence)

Basically you would be banning wars but don't discriminate on just theocracy, you are discriminating against the Theocratic Governments as well, because if they go to war, they wouldn't be able to attack or defend against anyone that attacks them, just saying.

If they are defending themselves from attack, thats the reason for the attack. Not religion, but defense.

[Freeoplis]

If a Nation is involved in violence towards it's people or the branding of children as witches due to their religious beliefs this Nation will possibly seek to declare war on one those Nations and put an end to such barbaric behavior, this would be a declaration upon a certain religious grouping and we wish to leave that possibility open. It is not right that any belief is permitted or immune from war especially when violence towards others is the case.

[The Sentenial Empire]

First of all, the WA can't enforce anything that passes really...Maybe a few sympathetic nations operate as an enforcement council. Secondly you cannot prevent one religious group from declaring war on another. It wont go away with a regulation passing either.

[Quadrimmina]

First of all, the WA can't enforce anything that passes really...Maybe a few sympathetic nations operate as an enforcement council. Secondly you cannot prevent one religious group from declaring war on another. It wont go away with a regulation passing either.

It's one thing to not be able to enforce it. It's another to keep a glaring loophole in it.

[Flibbleites]

I'd love to know what category and strength this is planned to be submitted under, simply because I can't see any that fit.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Unibot]

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

I honestly wouldn't be against that. Rights and Duties has more flaws than it does graces.

Agreed.

[American Capitalist]

I'd love to know what category and strength this is planned to be submitted under, simply because I can't see any that fit.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I've dropped it in favor of a more symbolic resolution but I still can't find a good category.

[Unibot]

I'd love to know what category and strength this is planned to be submitted under, simply because I can't see any that fit.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Global Disarmament : Mild or Educational (if the focus is more about promoting religious tolerance).

Although I think this among many other proposals before it highlights a key issue, along with a Health category, there should be a World Peace and/or a Religion (Area of Effect: Protection/Regulation) category... all of them are key issues for an institution that wishes to better the world, more so than say, the regulation of Gambling. There also appears to be hidden statistics for health, peace and sanctity that these categories could directly effect.

Yours,

[Krioval]

Although I think this among many other proposals before it highlights a key issue, along with a Health category, there should be a World Peace and/or a Religion (Area of Effect: Protection/Regulation) category... all of them are key issues for an institution that wishes to better the world, more so than say, the regulation of Gambling. There also appears to be hidden statistics for health, peace and sanctity that these categories could directly effect.

Yours,

Sorry, not seeing the need for those categories. "World peace" is already covered by "global disarmament". "Religion" is covered under "cultural". As for bettering the world, the Imperial Chiefdom feels that by streamlining trade across international borders, there is a flow of cultural information that goes along with it, improving intercultural exchange. I would strongly doubt, however, that many would automatically classify "free trade" proposals as somehow being better than proposals that oppose free trade. Also, I am confused by how "sanctity" is supposed to be understood in this context.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Unibot]

Although I think this among many other proposals before it highlights a key issue, along with a Health category, there should be a World Peace and/or a Religion (Area of Effect: Protection/Regulation) category... all of them are key issues for an institution that wishes to better the world, more so than say, the regulation of Gambling. There also appears to be hidden statistics for health, peace and sanctity that these categories could directly effect.

Yours,

Sorry, not seeing the need for those categories. "World peace" is already covered by "global disarmament". "Religion" is covered under "cultural". As for bettering the world, the Imperial Chiefdom feels that by streamlining trade across international borders, there is a flow of cultural information that goes along with it, improving intercultural exchange. I would strongly doubt, however, that many would automatically classify "free trade" proposals as somehow being better than proposals that oppose free trade. Also, I am confused by how "sanctity" is supposed to be understood in this context.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

OOC: I think one of the World Census reports refers to sanctity, not sure.

[Grays Harbor]

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

Just "the religious right"? Seriously?

[Grays Harbor]

Bah. This entire idea is constructed of, whats the word kids are using these days,.... "Fail", yes, thats it, from start to finish. Ideological bans are a bad idea. Very bad.

[American Capitalist]

Bah. This entire idea is constructed of, whats the word kids are using these days,.... "Fail", yes, thats it, from start to finish. Ideological bans are a bad idea. Very bad.

This does not constitute an ideological ban and will be more about promoting religious tolerance in the re-write then anything else.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

Wouldn't a ban on religious wars be an ideological ban?

[Glen-Rhodes]

This does not constitute an ideological ban and will be more about promoting religious tolerance in the re-write then anything else.

It does violate WAR#2, though.

[American Capitalist]

This does not constitute an ideological ban and will be more about promoting religious tolerance in the re-write then anything else.

It does violate WAR#2, though.

Which along with it being impossible to implement is why I'm re-writing it.

[Jennifer Government NS]

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.

Charlotte is right - The WA is quite powerless to prevent wars from taking place. I think that WA is only useful when you need to condemn a nation or a region (usually irritating) ; WA, however will never be a world government because every nation quite consciously or subconsciously want to govern itself in its sole discretion; usually in the General Assembly are passed the reforms of little political importance for the nations inside the WA; everyone wants to have as much independence as possible and very strong/very influential political reforms are often too risky and rejected.
This is only my opinion, I may be wrong