STATES BASED ON RELIGION AND/OR RACE
(Comments: tony.papard@btinternet.com)
It is no longer acceptable to have nation states which are based on either religion or race. All nation states should be secular, with freedom to worship any religion or none, equality for all races and religions.
To have nation states which favor one race over another, or which incorporate the ancient texts of one religious doctrine into their legal system, is undemocratic and a must inevitably lead to serious violations of human rights.
The United Nations needs to address this problem, and lay down some ground rules for all democratic states. This would require, for instance, the disestablishment of the Church of England in the UK, and the separation of church/mosque/synagogue/temple and State everywhere. Certainly you could not have a Head of State, such as the Queen of England, who was also the official head of the Anglican church, nor have C. of E. bishops sitting in the House of Lords.
There are other more obvious cases of nation states based on religion/race which I am not going to single out here. Everyone knows which they are, and they are anachronisms, totally unacceptable in this day and age. In South Africa apartheid has been abolished, in the Southern States of the USA de-segregation has taken place. There is no excuse for other countries to hang on to similar policies giving special rights to certain races/religions, and denying them to others. All nation states must become secular and multicultural. This should be a requirement of UN membership, and for recognition by other states.
So what about nation states/federations based on a political dogma, rather than a religion or race? I would suggest this is a different kettle of fish altogether. Democracy means we choose a government of a particular political persuasion. Provided the will of the majority is genuinely reflected in the color of the government, and minority rights are protected, it is perfectly acceptable to have a capitalist or a socialist state, a monarchy or a republic. The nature of this nation state would, of course, change if the majority opinion were to change.
So whilst the old Soviet Union, for instance, may not have been a true democracy, it would nevertheless be perfectly acceptable to form a new Socialist federation if it reflected the majority opinion in the member states. A Socialist Constitution would need to be approved by a large majority, and it would need to protect minority rights. It could also be abolished by a similar large majority vote.
The problem with nation states based on ancient religious texts or race is that these cannot be altered, they are set in stone. The UN Declaration of Human Rights outlaws many practices which occur in nation states which have adopted ancient religious texts and/or racial superiority as the basis of their legal and political systems. These are not truly democratic states, since those not adhering to the official State religion, or not a member of the ruling racial group, are denied full democratic rights.
This principle has far-reaching consequences on the world as we see it today. Certain nation states would have to be drastically altered to make them legal entities recognized by other states, and eligible for UN membership.