Well, we are very confused about the good ambassador Bell's whereabouts at this time. We were hoping to barter some of our office supplies for printer toner. Oh well, to the issue at hand.
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;
We are confused about this. What would "unnecessary entanglement" entail exactly? Would it be the (nominal) head of state holding the position of
defender of the faith for example? Displaying religious artifacts or idols during a national holiday?
We feel that if a nation is subscribing to the other points of this resolution would create a nation with freedom of religion without this part of the legislation. We know of nations with a state religion, where there is entanglement of government and religious functions that have provided a tolerant environment for all to practice their chosen faith. We have also seen examples of nations which have absolutely no involvement in religion at all who have openly prosecuted religious groups. We just do not see why the author has included this section as we feel it is not vital to achieving their laudable aim.
We are also concerned in part about this section, which we feel requires more clarity:
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;
We would be concerned that this could cloud some criminal trials. If laws are to be applied equally and fairly
as well as without regard to a person's particular religious belief or lack thereof this could create some problems.
As I am sure the good ambassador is aware, most legal systems contain the idea of mitigating/exacerbating circumstances. Thus a person committing an act of vandalism (graffiti) on the side of a bridge would receive a lesser sentence than someone spraying a holy site (a temple perhaps) with anti-religious graffiti. Under this new legislation, where a person's particular religious belief or lack thereof is not to be regarded - would this still be the case? We would just like to see some clarification - perhaps that a person's particular religious belief or lack thereof
could not be considered, on its own, as a factor for or against them in a criminal trial.