[DRAFT] Freedom of Religion

[Losthaven]

While I'm going to float my animal abuse resolution first, here's another critical piece of legislation that I think needs to be brought up at this time. So please start the discussion now. As always, I'd prefer to hear ways to fix problems or add additional protections but I understand some folks just want to voice their displeasure on this subject, so please feel free.

Warmest Regards,
Myron Stokov-Mercier, Distinguished Lawyer and Lead WA Counsel to the Losthavenite Delegation

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights ~*~ Strength: Strong

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Recognizing that among the citizens, residents, and visitors of member nations, most have some sense of spiritual belief and many adhere to a practiced religion;

Conscious that the overwhelming majority of people view their religion as a means to better themselves, help others and their community, and provide moral guidance and ethical support;

Strongly opposed to the minority of people who practice radicalized religion as a mandate to harm others, terrorize society, or otherwise cause mayhem and destruction;

Convinced that all people have a natural right to seek spiritual fulfillment in the way most agreeable to themselves, so long as they do so in a manner that respects the rights of others;

Resolved that the right of every individual to freely seek spiritual fulfillment ought to be strongly protected;

Now, therefore, the General Assembly hereby:

1. Declares that all people within a member nation's jurisdiction have the right to hold, express, and follow whatever religious or spiritual beliefs they freely choose, so long as they do so in a manner that fully respects the rights of others; and clarifies that the aforementioned right includes the right to disavow and abstain from religion if a person so chooses.

2. Recognizes the right of member nations to declare an official state religion, and to encourage individuals within their jurisdiction to adopt that religion through means that are not coercive, overbearing, or otherwise designed to overcome freewill;

3. Further recognizes the right of religious organizations, communities, and churches existing within member nations to proselytize their faith, so long as in doing so they do not resort to intimidation, coercion, or other undue or overbearing influence;

4. Prohibits the denial of any right, privilege, immunity, or benefit - provided by government or otherwise - on the basis that a person does or does not hold a particular religious belief;

5. Requires that member nations refrain from unnecessary entanglement of government and religious functions so as to avoid religious discrimination by government and the appearance of impropriety;

6. Prohibits the resort to religion or spiritual belief to justify harming, injuring, or causing loss to another, and requires that all criminal laws be applied equally, fairly, and without regard to a person's particular religious belief or lack thereof;

[Kaboomlandia]

Don't we already have Freedom of Expression?

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Don't we already have Freedom of Expression?

And???

[Bananaistan]

All of this is covered by existing resolutions. In any case, as a matter of long standing policy, Bananaistan will oppose any attempt to single out belief in imaginary friends and superstitious nonsense for special protection in international law.

[Losthaven]

Don't we already have Freedom of Expression?

Freedom of Expression "[a]ffirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal." "Expression" means "the process of making known one's thoughts or feelings." Freedom of Expression guarantees a form of free speech, i.e. it protects the right to makes one's religious views known. This proposal goes considerably beyond simply protecting the right to express a religious sentiment: it guarantees the right to choose a religion and practice it freely. While there may be some overlap, the two are not the same.

Put simply, the general right to "express" a religious view is not the same as the right to freely choose and practice a religion (or refrain from doing so). There's no duplication problem here.

Edit:

All of this is covered by existing resolutions. In any case, as a matter of long standing policy, Bananaistan will oppose any attempt to single out belief in imaginary friends and superstitious nonsense for special protection in international law.

The proposal would also protect the freedom not to believe in religion - or as you so eloquently put it, "belief in imaginary friends and superstitious nonsense".

[Belivonia]

Forgive me if I am wrong, does this mean children that believe in the Pasta god, can come into school with a pasta hat and be protected by this resolution if it comes into international law?

[Losthaven]

Forgive me if I am wrong, does this mean children that believe in the Pasta god, can come into school with a pasta hat and be protected by this resolution if it comes into international law?

That's an absurd example. I really don't want to be dragged into the balck hole of endlessly debating the absurd hypothetical practices of absurd hypothetical religions.

As written, the resolution would require that individuals be allowed to "follow" their religion or spiritual beliefs. The resolution already disallows following religious beliefs that would harm another. As written, a harmless expression of faith - like, for instance, wearing a pasta hat if your Pasta god so commanded - would be permissible. But I think a less absurd example along these same lines would be that Jewish children would be allowed to wear yamakas.

[Bananaistan]

The proposal would also protect the freedom not to believe in religion - or as you so eloquently put it, "belief in imaginary friends and superstitious nonsense".

I do not believe that it is possible for the state to regulate beliefs so everyone already has this freedom. In any case, should someone express their absence of a belief, or the opinion that it is all nonsense, this is protected by the first clause of freedom of expression as such an absence of belief or an opinion that it is all nonsense is a "personal, moral, political, cultural, religious [or] ideological [view]".

[Dooom35796821595]

Forgive me if I am wrong, does this mean children that believe in the Pasta god, can come into school with a pasta hat and be protected by this resolution if it comes into international law?

That's an absurd example. I really don't want to be dragged into the balck hole of endlessly debating the absurd hypothetical practices of absurd hypothetical religions.

As written, the resolution would require that individuals be allowed to "follow" their religion or spiritual beliefs. The resolution already disallows following religious beliefs that would harm another. As written, a harmless expression of faith - like, for instance, wearing a pasta hat if your Pasta god so commanded - would be permissible. But I think a less absurd example along these same lines would be that Jewish children would be allowed to wear yamakas.

And what makes the first example more absurd then the bizarre notion that an all powerful God would want its followers to wear odd pieces of fabric on their head? As I see it, any religious devotion can leave people vulnerable to indoctrination. Besides, some of the worst wars ever fought were over religious beliefs, so we stand against this attempt to justify mass delusions in a population.

[Losthaven]

Any other preliminary thoughts?

[Separatist Peoples]

"The argument that this isn't covered by Freedom of Expression is...highly convincing, actually. This doesn't seem to be objectionable at the moment. More to follow, hopefully,"
Bell calls over a large armload of pilfered Stellonian booze.

[Bananaistan]

Any other preliminary thoughts?

Yes, if you bring this forward we will actively campaign against any special recognition of religion.

[Tinfect]

"Er, No, Ambassador. The Imperium as of yet reserves the right to ban Religions that actively promote Primitivism, or Violence."

OOC: I feel like this proposal both Promotes, and Bans Theocracies. Obviously, I cannot support any legislation that promotes, or protects Theocratic Governments, but the contradictions lie in the following clauses:

2. Recognizes the right of member nations to declare an official state religion, and to encourage individuals within their jurisdiction to adopt that religion through means that are not coercive, overbearing, or otherwise designed to overcome freewill;

5. Requires that member nations refrain from unnecessary entanglement of government and religious functions so as to avoid religious discrimination by government and the appearance of impropriety;

[Mundiferrum]

"Er, No, Ambassador. The Imperium as of yet reserves the right to ban Religions that actively promote Primitivism, or Violence."

OOC: I feel like this proposal both Promotes, and Bans Theocracies. Obviously, I cannot support any legislation that promotes, or protects Theocratic Governments, but the contradictions lie in the following clauses:

2. Recognizes the right of member nations to declare an official state religion, and to encourage individuals within their jurisdiction to adopt that religion through means that are not coercive, overbearing, or otherwise designed to overcome freewill;

5. Requires that member nations refrain from unnecessary entanglement of government and religious functions so as to avoid religious discrimination by government and the appearance of impropriety;

Promoting a religion isn't the same as getting entangled in religious functions. Think of it this way: Peter Dinklage is allowed to advertise on the streets for people to watch Game of Thrones as per number 2, but he isn't allowed to change how the show is made, as per number 5. Then change Peter Dinklage into the government, and watch Game of Thrones into get their kids baptized or something.

[Sobaira]

"Er, No, Ambassador. The Imperium as of yet reserves the right to ban Religions that actively promote Primitivism, or Violence."

OOC: I feel like this proposal both Promotes, and Bans Theocracies. Obviously, I cannot support any legislation that promotes, or protects Theocratic Governments, but the contradictions lie in the following clauses:

2. Recognizes the right of member nations to declare an official state religion, and to encourage individuals within their jurisdiction to adopt that religion through means that are not coercive, overbearing, or otherwise designed to overcome freewill;

5. Requires that member nations refrain from unnecessary entanglement of government and religious functions so as to avoid religious discrimination by government and the appearance of impropriety;

OOC: A quick preponderance leads me to believe that 5 doesn't ultimately do anything to a theocracy; one could simply state that as a theocratic government that all entanglement is strictly necessary and doesn't run afoul that line. However, the other lines within it do seem like they'd make theocracies... awkward at best. Really it feels more like 4. is the one that bans Theocracies... sorta.

For instance, 4. as written makes me believe that if there were, say, a church that was holding a BBQ, and only members of the faith that the church belongs to are allowed to attend, that that church would be breaking this resolution. Because it's an entity "government or otherwise" that is denying a benefit (given if we consider that access to their BBQ as a benefit to be a thing) to persons based on their not holding a particular faith.

Actually, it seems like 4. can really be used to restrict a lot of things. Let's say there's a religious position called 'space pope', a position only available to certain... space popists. You cannot be the space pope unless you are a space popist. Would that ban contradict 4.? Is running for space pope-hood a privilege afforded only to those of a certain faith? If so, then that'd be a privilege denied by something goverment or otherwise on the basis of faith.

Taking that further, if it's a theocracy, so the space pope is also mr president space pope voted on from those of the space popists, that means governmental offices are denied to those of the wrong faith, which is easily argued that that is either a 'right' or 'privilege' or 'benefit' denied them.

Also if need be, to say that running isn't a right, privilege, or benefit. Nor holding office any of those... you could then have those of a different faith argue that they're just having an immunity to those offices which means giving them to the faithful is denying that immunity and wow this gets fast into stupid stuff I'm thinking way too hard on this.

But even that's not really a ban on theocracies, they'd just have to work differently. Such as letting someone who isn't a member of the faith at all be in charge of the faith.... in the odd circumstance where that such would happen. But then as someone who isn't of the faith, would their using the theocracy's position to change the faith then be against 5.?

Probably the best way to fix this is to amend 4 to include something on the notion that the prohibition doesn't apply to things of purely religious importance. That would allow the space popists to only have space popists as space pope, I feel. But then would that be sufficient to permit only space popists to be space pope if space pope is also mr president space pope? That'd be more than a religious importance; as the head of the governing body mr president space pope is also a politically important figure.

Perhaps 'primarily' religious importance instead of 'purely'? If you lived in a different country out from the rule of mr president space pope but were still a space popist, the space pope is still important; meaning one could argue that even as the head of government it's primarily a religious position due to the nature of a theocracy. But even that argument falls apart if there's literally no adherents outside of the nation. Maybe the exception just requires 'great significance'? But that would still ban the spoilered example of a church not letting an atheist go to their BBQ.

Most troubling.

... for my first post, even if all OOC, didn't expect to type up so much. Hopefully it's not a problem for anyone! I'm incredibly new to this stuff, even if I've been reading these forums for a while.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Then change Peter Dinklage into the government,

And it would be hilarious!

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

"We do not believe this resolution offers sufficient protection for religious freedoms, for example it does not say that people cannot be forced to do things that violate their religious beliefs.

We are also concerned with the following:

5. Requires that member nations refrain from unnecessary entanglement of government and religious functions so as to avoid religious discrimination by government and the appearance of impropriety;

Our government and our religion are deeply intertwined, and we do not wish to have our religious government curdled."

[Normlpeople]

Clover spoke up, from her dusty desk "Why is this required when the CoCR explicitly grants this right already?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"We do not believe this resolution offers sufficient protection for religious freedoms, for example it does not say that people cannot be forced to do things that violate their religious beliefs.

We are also concerned with the following:

5. Requires that member nations refrain from unnecessary entanglement of government and religious functions so as to avoid religious discrimination by government and the appearance of impropriety;

Our government and our religion are deeply intertwined, and we do not wish to have our religious government curdled."

"That would be illegal unless it very specifically didn't apply to international law. In which case, nothing stops your government from utilizing such laws domestically."

[Stellonia]

Bell calls over a large armload of pilfered Stellonian booze.

Little did Bell know that the liquor was actually a highly toxic solution.

[Separatist Peoples]

Bell calls over a large armload of pilfered Stellonian booze.

Little did Bell know that the liquor was actually a highly toxic solution.

Fortunately, alcohol is not so toxic as to be undrinkable, and while the Stellonian ambassador had shitty taste in booze, none of it was so bad as to make Bell sick.

[Adirondackia]

Convinced that all people have a natural right to seek spiritual fulfillment in the way most agreeable to themselves, so long as they do so in a manner that respects the rights of others;

[...]

4. Prohibits the denial of any right, privilege, immunity, or benefit - provided by government or otherwise - on the basis that a person does or does not hold a particular religious belief;

5. Requires that member nations refrain from unnecessary entanglement of government and religious functions so as to avoid religious discrimination by government and the appearance of impropriety;

"Although such questions might seem vain, but would you excuse me and clarify the following points?", chirps the delegate from his distant seat.

"Firstly, what would be the red line not to cross when talking about "A manner that respects the rights of others"? Would, for exemple, a group of people participating in religion A be allowed to hold a meeting in the streets? Would prohibiting that meeting break provision #5?

Furthermore- Let us imagine that churches of this "A" religion enjoy a tax break on the basis that they redistribute their money to charity- And churches from the "B" religion don't, and thus are taxed- Would that break either provision #4 or #5?"

[Stellonia]

Little did Bell know that the liquor was actually a highly toxic solution.

Fortunately, alcohol is not so toxic as to be undrinkable, and while the Stellonian ambassador had shitty taste in booze, none of it was so bad as to make Bell sick.

Bell then decided to take a shortcut through a mysterious back alley. Suddenly, three masked men armed to the teeth (not literally, of course) approached him. One of them put a gun to his head and demanded all of his money.

[Separatist Peoples]

Fortunately, alcohol is not so toxic as to be undrinkable, and while the Stellonian ambassador had shitty taste in booze, none of it was so bad as to make Bell sick.

Bell then decided to take a shortcut through a mysterious back alley. Suddenly, three masked men armed to the teeth (not literally, of course) approached him. One of them put a gun to his head and demanded all of his money.

Ooc: you do not get to Roleplay my character. As far as I'm concerned, that didn't happen.

[Stellonia]

Fine.

Suddenly, three masked men armed to the teeth (not literally, of course) approached Bell. One of them put a gun to his head and demanded all of his money.

There. Your character did nothing. I simply created three new characters to attack Bell.