Update on UN resolution to BAN Religion

[Clio]

A draft resolution which aims to secure global peace and stability at the expense of organized religion was submitted to the United Nations in New York on 1/27/04. I have requested an updated from []inquiries@un.org.[/] Any response I receive will be posted here.

I kept the news release that was issued on that date. It is posted here for your reading.

BTW - The bolding is mine, and why I decided to retain, and periodically check on, this issue.

*************************************************************************

NEW YORK, NY (PRWEB) January 27, 2004 -- A draft resolution which aims to secure global peace and stability at the expense of organized religion is today being submitted to the United Nations in New York.

The resolution is being proposed by Antony Last, founder of http://www.formulism.org , a site which claims that freedom FROM religion would be of far greater benefit to mankind than freedom OF religion.

Freedom from Religion | Proposed UN Resolution / Charter Amendment | Version 1.1

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS HEREBY VOW

* to save succeeding generations from the scourge of organized religion, a folly which has brought untold sorrow to mankind through the division, hatred and conflict it engenders, and

* to reaffirm an individual's right to freedom of belief, freedom of conscience and freedom of prayer, and

* to establish conditions under which these freedoms can be privately exercised.

AND FOR THESE ENDS WE UNDERTAKE

1. To outlaw, with immediate effect, the public _expression of religious beliefs, including the use of symbols, clothing or markings which are synonymous with any currently or previously existing religions.

2. To outlaw, with immediate effect, public acts of worship or religious declaration.

3. To outlaw, with immediate effect, private gatherings of three or more people for the purposes of engaging in acts of worship or religious services.

4. To outlaw, with immediate effect, the publication of books, literature or articles which seek to promote religious beliefs or encourage adherence to religious doctrine.

5. To outlaw, after a period of amnesty, the personal ownership of books or materials which seek to promote religious beliefs or encourage adherence to religious doctrine. (Books of academic or social interest will be made freely available to schools, universities and public libraries).

6. To outlaw, with immediate effect, the celebration of religiously significant dates.

7. To begin, with immediate effect, the destruction or reassignment of predominantly religious buildings, such as churches, mosques and temples.

For further information, see:

http://www.formulism.org/news.html (now unavailable the last I checked)

United Nations Contact Information

Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General

United Nations, S-378

New York, NY 10017

Press/media inquiries only

Tel. 212-963-7162

Fax. 212-963-7055

All other inquiries to be addressed to (212) 963-4475 or []inquiries@un.org[/]

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "A draft resolution. . . was submitted to the United Nations in New York on 1/27/04."

Oh!

I am uncertain as to what it means to state that a draft resolution was submitted to the United Nations. The reference given appears to be that of an individual. If that is correct, one must ask if that person has the authority to submit a draft resolution to the United Nations.

Certainly anyone may send a lettter to the UN asking them to take a specific action. It is possible that the person referenced did such. However, I believe that only member governments of the United Nations have the authority to submit draft resolutions. And, I am uncertain as to whether or not all member nations have that authority, but they may.

If I am correct that only member nations have the authority to submit draft resolutions, then the statement that a draft resolution has been submitted is inaccurate and misleading.

It appears that we only have the claim of an individual, who speaks from an apparently closed website, that such has been submitted.

Let us not become concerned over something with no demonstrated validity.

In any case, the title of this thread "Update on UN resolution to BAN religion," is clearly inaccurate. A request to bring a resolution before a body cannot be accurately described as a resolution that has been accepted by that body to be voted upon. The title of this thread seems to indicate that there is such a resolution that will be voted upon. That evidence has not been given to us.

It should be noted that the proposal is claimed to have been made in January 2004. Thus it is old stuff. There is nothing to indicate that there is anything current about it. It is probably that the UN simply trashed it? If so, what is the revelance for us today?

Maybe the revelance might be found in the following statement, which may or may not be accurate: "Two years ago, someone attempted to ban religion, and failed to do so."

[Clio]

It was submitted.

When I checked on it in January of 2005 it had been tabled pending further review, investigation and discussion.

I'm doing my annual check on it again this year. When I receive a response from the UN, I will post it here.

Edited to add:

From the UN website:

Q: I would like to send an E-mail to the Secretary-General to propose an idea for how to achieve global unity. What is his E-mail address?

A: E-mails addressed to the Secretary-General should be sent to []inquiries@un.org[/] . Proposals can only be taken up by the United Nations when presented by an official representative of a Member State and after being duly inscribed on the agenda of the Organization and voted by its Membership.

************************************************************************

This is an apparent disparity between what my records reflect from last year, as to what is possible. This disparity was also addressed in my email this morning.

Clio

[bevin]

There are people who just investigate how outrageous a suggestion or activity that can put through an official channel.

The fact that the USA post office lets you send letters advocating the euthanising of all whales does not mean that they in any way support or endorse it

The fact that people send these outrageous things does not necessarily mean that themselves believe it - they are just tweaking other people

/Bevin

Candidate for the most offensive bumper sticker-

[:"blue"] Nuke A Gay Whale For Jesus [/]

[Clio]

I don't disagree with anything either you or Gregory have said.

I posted this because someone actually was able to forumlate and submit the above. A full year later it hadn't actually been killed at the UN. I'm just touching base with them to see if it's been killed or progressed.

Once something is able to formulated in words, and begins to circulate in writing, it has a way of making it into the collective consciousness.

Sheesh... You guys act like I believe this is happening now. I put up here that it's something I'm just checking on.... and I will post the response I get.

Time is short, we've been told that Bibles will be outlawed. In Canada, I believe it has had portions classified as hate speech. I have a friend in Toronto, who maintains all in readiness for a protracted prison stay based on the fact he preaches from those portions of the Bible from the pulpit.

If someone actually submitted this, and it appears from my response from them LAST January that they did, it would seem to me, to behoove us to watch, and at least be aware, of what they're doing with it.

Clio

[Clio]

According to the response I received from the UN inquiries group, this was abandoned in favor of different resolutions under the auspices of the Human Rights working committee.

The resolution was abandoned in February of '05.

Clio