United Nations to ban religion?

[EmperorSwordMan]

There's no way the UN would ever consider doing anything like that, especially since they're very strict about freedom of religion. Doing this would be purely barbaric and unjust, and I honestly can't stand people who want to interfere with what Other people want to believe.

 

[cataway]

what if were a Uniting of nations against religion ?

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

This was a proposal submitted to the UN la few years back. The formulism site is now off line, but the formulism movement seems quite alive.

Quote:
The resolution is being proposed by Antony Last, founder of 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.


See Revelation Chapters 17 & 18

Is that some dream?

Google the lyrics to John Lennon's Imagine

Take note of religious developments in Russia.

so they ran up trying to be jerks so they can take it all away.
Or are they just saying they have a guilty conscience about it all.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I heard the United Nations was also planning on banning handlebar mustaches. They're even going to have specialized units of highly trained tactical soldiers whose sole job is to neutralize offenders, with extreme prejudice. I read it somewhere on the internet at some point. It seemed legit. We can't let this happen! Think of the hipsters!

 

[ZooGirl02]

If that were to ever take place, in reality, it would certainly be a severe persecution of Christianity similar to that seen in the United Soviet Socialist Republic.

 

[Fiona smith]

A silly idea that will never get anywhere. All attempting to do so will do is radicalize underground religious movements, create an incredibly strong backlash worse than it ever was with secular governments with religious freedom, and by no means guarantee governance from the same kind of prejudices seen in fundamental institution. As an irreligious atheist I value religious freedom. If people decide to set aside religious leanings as a group, let it be organically, not by force.

Actually, If you look in the bible, It states that there will be a "great tribulation" such as has never occurred since the beginning of man. Governments are going to join with the UNO to ban the religions. At that time, all governments are going to give their allegiance to the UNO and will be governed by the UNO just like we the people are governed by our governments. Its going to create mass chaos all over the earth just like Jerusalem was back before it was destroyed shortly after Jesus' day. Its not going to be pretty. What is supposed to happen first (and I am sure its up for debate) is that something big is supposed to happen on the world scene. A declaration of peace and security is to happen and as quickly as that happens, the UNO will announce its ban on religion. They, with the help of each government, will do to all religions what Russia just did to Jehovahs witnesses last year. Once that happens, its too late. The world is going to descend into chaos, not peace. So, your theory on what is going to happen is actually not theory but is correct.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Actually, If you look in the bible, It states that there will be a "great tribulation" such as has never occurred since the beginning of man.

Yes. This is all taking a long time. How much time is supposed to pass before this ever gets called into question? 2000 years of any day now

 

[Curious George]

This was a proposal submitted to the UN la few years back. The formulism site is now off line, but the formulism movement seems quite alive.

Quote:
The resolution is being proposed by Antony Last, founder of 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.


See Revelation Chapters 17 & 18

Is that some dream?

Google the lyrics to John Lennon's Imagine

Take note of religious developments in Russia.

A/RES/36/55. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief

Un bills are coded and if you do not provide the code, we cannot see what you are discussing.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

The UN is dangerous. There is a Biblical prophecy of a Beast which has ten horns, and a ruler over ten kingdoms. The United Nations unveiled a plan to divide the world into 10 regions.

 

[LuisDantas]

I wish the UN had the power to be dangerous. Because that would mean that it can impose itself.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Trust me, you don't.

Criticism of the United Nations - Wikipedia

A list of things they've done wrong even with limited power. God help us (even the atheists) if they ever were sovereign.

 

[LuisDantas]

Many of those criticisms are either misguided, unwarranted or insubstantial. The whole list is indeed informative, but rather unconvincing as well.

Which ones would you personally support, @Samantha Rinne ?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

All of them.

They have a freaking IVORY statue thingy (yay, ivory trade), we saw it when I visited the NYC office back when I was still naive enough to believe UN worked for common good. I was 16 then, what's your excuse?

The UN has engaged in sexual misconduct, particularly (but not limited to) their people in foreign countries assaulting foreign citizens.

They have diplomats that literally rack up millions in parking fines, and the bill gets footed by someone else (probably the taxpayer). They have children using company cars, or committing crimes, or whatever and there is NO central oversight. They get a slap on the wrist.

Their failure to maintain peace, particularly in Rwanda (and in Bosnia, and in Syria), where they basically stood aside during genocide. For that matter, they often have destabilized countries, overthrowing leaders they deemed unworthy, only to allow far worse rulers to take power. This happened in the Middle East.

They behave as a cover for despotic activity. As in, "We're with the UN, we cannot possibly be corrupt oligarchs." You sure are.

They elected Saudi Arabia to the U.N. Women’s Rights Commission. Yeah, along with Mexico and such, one of the most chauvinistic cultures, let them run a women's rights section.

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - Wikipedia

Wikipedia has actual standards for reliable sources. Many of the ones I personally mentioned just now, are things I found by personal research. Meanwhile, those things by wiki have already had been verified. 74 references. Yes, but by all means, feel free to blanket call all of that "unproven." It's easy to SAY something is unproven. But unless you can PROVE it's unproven, you're just blowing smoke.

 

[YmirGF]

Wow, just when I thought the UN had almost become irrelevant. Who knew?