[DEFEATED] Freedom of Religion

by **States of Glory WA Office** » Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:59 pm

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING that many inhabitants of member states have strong and often deep religious convictions,

CONVINCED that individuals have a universal right to their own religious beliefs,

CONCERNED that, in some member states, this right is threatened by the actions of the government or the prevailing cultural or religious practices,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there may be a compelling public interest to restrict this right under certain circumstances, such as the health and safety of others,

WISHING to remain neutral regarding the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

DEFINES a religious ritual, for the purposes of this resolution, as an act that is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

DEFINES a request, for the purposes of present and future international legislation and of putting an end to frivolous arguments, as an optional, non-mandatory and non-binding recommendation,

CLARIFIES that Clause Eight is non-mandatory,

AFFIRMS the right of all individuals within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,

REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that do not otherwise break national or international laws,

CLARIFIES that the below clause is non-mandatory,

REQUESTS member states, notwithstanding Clause Six, to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that otherwise break national laws, unless such rituals:

cause harm to other individuals,
cause undue suffering to non-sapient living beings,
cause damage to the property of other individuals or organisations without their consent, or
contradict extant WA legislation,

CLARIFIES that the above clause is non-mandatory,

CLARIFIES further that religious belief shall not constitute a legal defence, aggravation or extenuating circumstance in any situation other than the allowances that a member state willingly chooses to grant under Clause Eight,

FORBIDS member states from discriminating against individuals purely on the basis of their religious belief without a reasonable and compelling justification that abides by the principles laid out in the preamble and by prior unrepealed legislation,

DECLARES that the World Assembly shall make no statement on the validity of religious beliefs or the lack thereof,

REITERATES that Clause Eight is non-mandatory.

Neville: Well, this one's a biggie. We've probably messed up big time somewhere in this proposal, so by all means, give criticism. Yes, unlike last time, we do actually intend to submit this at some point.

I'm aware that Clauses Seven and Eight duplicate existing legislation, but that is intended merely as a safeguard. We hope that all the other requirements will give this proposal some teeth. Also, we've cobbled together the best definition of a religious belief which we could think of, but if you have any suggestions for improvement on that front, we would like to hear them.

OOC: Also, Ara, before you utilise your Proposal Scalpel^TM, remember to respect this draft's religious convictions. ;)

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING that many inhabitants of WA member states have strong and often deep religious convictions,

BELIEVING that individuals have a right to such convictions,

CONCERNED that some member states may attempt to intrude on this right,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there may be a compelling public interest to restrict this right under certain circumstances,

WISHING to remain neutral on the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

1) DEFINES a "religious belief", for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

2) DEFINES a "religious ritual", for the purposes of this resolution, as an act which is committed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

3) AFFIRMS the right of all sapient beings within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,

4) REQUIRES member states to legalise all religious rituals unless they contradict extant WA legislation or would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons,

5) REQUESTS member states to legalise religious rituals that would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons if such rituals do not cause harm to other sapient beings,

6) REQUIRES that member states must also respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,

7) FORBIDS member states from discriminating against sapient beings purely on the basis of their religious belief or lack thereof, unless such discrimination is necessary to ensure that individuals are not forced to perform acts which are prohibited according to their religious belief,

8) DECLARES that member states have the right to establish an official religion, so long as they do not discriminate against individuals of other faiths or of no faith in doing so,

9) ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Religion Foundation (hereby referred to as the WARF),

10) TASKS the WARF with designating holy sites within member states,

11) PROHIBITS member states from intentionally or negligently damaging, vandalising or destroying holy sites which have been designated as such by the WARF,

12) CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as a statement by the World Assembly on the validity of certain religious beliefs.

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING that many inhabitants of WA member states have strong and often deep religious convictions,

BELIEVING that individuals have a right to such convictions,

CONCERNED that some member states may attempt to intrude on this right,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there may be a compelling public interest to restrict this right under certain circumstances,

WISHING to remain neutral on the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

1) DEFINES a "religious belief", for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

2) DEFINES a "religious ritual", for the purposes of this resolution, as an act which is committed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

3) AFFIRMS the right of all sapient beings within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,

4) REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals unless they contradict extant WA legislation or would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons,

5) REQUESTS member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons if such rituals do not cause harm to other sapient beings,

6) REQUIRES that member states must also respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,

7) FORBIDS member states from discriminating against sapient beings purely on the basis of their religious belief or lack thereof, unless such discrimination is necessary to ensure that individuals are not forced to perform acts which are prohibited according to their religious belief,

8) DECLARES that member states have the right to establish an official religion, so long as they do not discriminate against individuals of other faiths or of no faith in doing so,

9) ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Religion Foundation (hereby referred to as the WARF),

10) TASKS the WARF with designating holy sites within member states,

11) PROHIBITS member states from intentionally or negligently damaging, vandalising or destroying holy sites which have been designated as such by the WARF,

12) ALLOWS member states to construct public buildings and facilities on designated holy sites if there is no other location where such construction can practically take place,

13) MANDATES that member states make a good-faith effort to preserve designated holy sites for religious use in the course of any construction which may take place on that site,

14) MANDATES that member states make a good-faith effort to restore designated holy sites to their former state once any construction on that site is completed, unless doing so is not possible,

15) CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as a statement by the World Assembly on the validity of certain religious beliefs.

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING that many inhabitants of WA member states have strong and often deep religious convictions,

BELIEVING that individuals have a right to such convictions,

CONCERNED that some member states may attempt to intrude on this right,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there may be a compelling public interest to restrict this right under certain circumstances,

WISHING to remain neutral on the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

1) DEFINES a "religious belief", for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

2) DEFINES a "religious ritual", for the purposes of this resolution, as an act which is committed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

3) AFFIRMS the right of all sapient beings within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,

4) REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals unless they contradict extant WA legislation or would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons,

5) REQUESTS member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons if such rituals do not cause harm to other sapient beings or undue suffering to non-sapient living beings,

6) REQUIRES that member states must also respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,

7) FORBIDS member states from discriminating against sapient beings purely on the basis of their religious belief or lack thereof, unless such discrimination is necessary to ensure that individuals are not forced to perform acts which are prohibited according to their religious belief,

8) DECLARES that member states have the right to establish an official religion, so long as they do not discriminate against individuals of other faiths or of no faith in doing so,

9) ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Religion Foundation (hereby referred to as the WARF),

10) TASKS the WARF with designating holy sites within member states,

11) PROHIBITS member states from intentionally or negligently damaging, vandalising or destroying holy sites which have been designated as such by the WARF,

12) ALLOWS member states to construct public buildings and facilities on designated holy sites if there is no other location where such construction can practically take place,

13) MANDATES that member states make a good-faith effort to preserve designated holy sites for religious use in the course of any construction which may take place on that site,

14) MANDATES that member states make a good-faith effort to restore designated holy sites to their former state once any construction on that site is completed, unless doing so is not possible,

15) CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as a statement by the World Assembly on the validity of certain religious beliefs.

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING that many inhabitants of WA member states have strong and often deep religious convictions,

BELIEVING that individuals have a right to such convictions,

CONCERNED that some member states may attempt to intrude on this right,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there may be a compelling public interest to restrict this right under certain circumstances,

WISHING to remain neutral on the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

1) DEFINES a "religious belief", for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

2) DEFINES a "religious ritual", for the purposes of this resolution, as an act which is committed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

3) AFFIRMS the right of all sapient beings within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,

4) REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals unless they contradict extant WA legislation or would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons,

5) REQUESTS member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons if such rituals do not cause harm to other sapient beings or undue suffering to non-sapient living beings,

6) REQUIRES that member states must also respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,

7) FORBIDS member states from discriminating against sapient beings purely on the basis of their religious belief or lack thereof, unless such discrimination is necessary to ensure that individuals are not forced to perform acts which are prohibited according to their religious belief,

8) DECLARES that member states have the right to establish an official religion, so long as they do not discriminate against individuals of other faiths or of no faith in doing so,

9) ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Religion Foundation (hereby referred to as the WARF),

10) TASKS the WARF with designating holy sites within member states,

11) PROHIBITS member states from intentionally or negligently damaging, vandalising or destroying holy sites which have been designated as such by the WARF,

12) ALLOWS member states to construct public buildings and facilities on designated holy sites if there is no other location where such construction can practically take place,

13) FORBIDS member states from intentionally placing armed forces in holy sites present in hostile nations for the purposes of gaining a strategic advantage,

14) ALLOWS member states to engage with hostile forces that are found in holy sites,

15) MANDATES that member states make a good-faith effort to preserve designated holy sites for religious use in the course of any construction or military engagement which may take place on that site,

16) MANDATES that member states make a good-faith effort to restore designated holy sites to their former state once any construction or military engagement on that site is completed, unless doing so is not possible,

17) CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as a statement by the World Assembly on the validity of certain religious beliefs.

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING that many inhabitants of WA member states have strong and often deep religious convictions,

BELIEVING that individuals have a right to such convictions,

CONCERNED that some member states may attempt to intrude on this right,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there may be a compelling public interest to restrict this right under certain circumstances,

WISHING to remain neutral on the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

1) DEFINES a "religious belief", for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

2) DEFINES a "religious ritual", for the purposes of this resolution, as an act which is committed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

3) AFFIRMS the right of all sapient beings within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,

4) REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals unless they contradict extant WA legislation or would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons,

5) REQUESTS member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons if such rituals do not cause harm to other sapient beings or undue suffering to non-sapient living beings,

6) REQUIRES that member states must also respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,

7) FORBIDS member states from discriminating against sapient beings purely on the basis of their religious belief or lack thereof, unless such discrimination is necessary to ensure that individuals are not forced to perform acts which are prohibited according to their religious belief,

8) DECLARES that member states have the right to establish an official religion, so long as they do not discriminate against individuals of other faiths or of no faith in doing so,

9) CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as a statement by the World Assembly on the validity of certain religious beliefs.

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING that many inhabitants of WA member states have strong and often deep religious convictions,

BELIEVING that individuals have a right to such convictions,

CONCERNED that some member states may attempt to intrude on this right,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there may be a compelling public interest to restrict this right under certain circumstances,

WISHING to remain neutral on the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

1) DEFINES a "religious belief", for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

2) DEFINES a "religious ritual", for the purposes of this resolution, as an act which is committed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

3) DEFINES a "request", for the purposes of this resolution and of putting an end to frivolous arguments, as a recommendation,

4) AFFIRMS the right of all sapient beings within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,

5) REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals unless they contradict extant WA legislation or would otherwise be illegal under domestic law were they not performed for religious reasons,

6) REQUESTS member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that would otherwise be illegal under domestic law were they not performed for religious reasons if such rituals do not cause harm to other sapient beings or undue suffering to non-sapient living beings,

7) CLARIFIES that Clause Six does not apply to religious rituals which contradict extant WA legislation,

8) REQUIRES that member states must also respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,

9) FORBIDS member states from discriminating against sapient beings purely on the basis of their religious belief or lack thereof, unless such discrimination is necessary to ensure that individuals are not forced to perform acts which are prohibited according to their religious belief,

10) DECLARES that member states have the right to establish an official religion, so long as they do not discriminate against individuals of other faiths or of no faith in doing so,

11) CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as a statement by the World Assembly on the validity of certain religious beliefs.

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING that many inhabitants of WA member states have strong and often deep religious convictions,

BELIEVING that individuals have a right to such convictions,

CONCERNED that some member states may attempt to intrude on this right,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there may be a compelling public interest to restrict this right under certain circumstances,

WISHING to remain neutral on the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

1) DEFINES a "religious belief", for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

2) DEFINES a "religious ritual", for the purposes of this resolution, as an act which is committed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

3) DEFINES a "request", for the purposes of this resolution and of putting an end to frivolous arguments, as a recommendation,

4) AFFIRMS the right of all sapient beings within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,

5) REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals unless they contradict extant WA legislation or would otherwise be illegal under domestic law were they not performed for religious reasons,

6) REQUESTS member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that would otherwise be illegal under domestic law were they not performed for religious reasons if such rituals do not cause harm to other sapient beings or undue suffering to non-sapient living beings,

7) CLARIFIES that Clause Six does not apply to religious rituals which contradict extant WA legislation,

8) REQUIRES that member states must also respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,

9) FORBIDS member states from discriminating against sapient beings purely on the basis of their religious belief or lack thereof, unless such discrimination is necessary to ensure that individuals are not forced to perform acts which are prohibited according to their religious belief,

10) DECLARES that member states have the right to establish an official religion, so long as they do not discriminate against individuals of other faiths or of no faith in doing so,

11) CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as a statement by the World Assembly on the validity of certain religious beliefs,

12) DECLARES that apples and oranges are definitely not the same thing.

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING that many inhabitants of WA member states have strong and often deep religious convictions,

BELIEVING that individuals have a right to such convictions,

CONCERNED that some member states may attempt to intrude on this right,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there may be a compelling public interest to restrict this right under certain circumstances,

WISHING to remain neutral on the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

DEFINES a "religious belief", for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

DEFINES a "religious ritual", for the purposes of this resolution, as an act which is committed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

DEFINES a "request", for the purposes of this resolution and of putting an end to frivolous arguments, as a recommendation,

AFFIRMS the right of all sapient beings within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,

REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals unless they contradict extant WA legislation or would otherwise be illegal under domestic law were they not performed for religious reasons,

REQUESTS member states, notwithstanding Clause Five, to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that would otherwise be illegal under domestic law were they not performed for religious reasons unless such rituals:

cause harm to other sapient beings,
cause undue suffering to non-sapient living beings, or
cause damage to the property of other sapient beings or organisations without their consent,

CLARIFIES that Clause Six does not apply to religious rituals which contradict extant WA legislation,

REQUIRES that member states must also respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,

FORBIDS member states from discriminating against sapient beings purely on the basis of their religious belief or lack thereof, unless such discrimination is necessary to ensure that individuals are not forced to perform acts which are prohibited according to their religious belief,

DECLARES that member states have the right to establish an official religion, so long as they do not discriminate against individuals of other faiths or of no faith in doing so,

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as a statement by the World Assembly on the validity of certain religious beliefs.

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING that many inhabitants of WA member states have strong and often deep religious convictions,

BELIEVING that individuals have a right to such convictions,

CONCERNED that some member states may attempt to intrude on this right,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there may be a compelling public interest to restrict this right under certain circumstances,

WISHING to remain neutral on the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

DEFINES a "religious belief", for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

DEFINES a "religious ritual", for the purposes of this resolution, as an act which is committed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

DEFINES a "request", for the purposes of this resolution and of putting an end to frivolous arguments, as a recommendation,

AFFIRMS the right of all sapient beings within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,

REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals unless they contradict extant WA legislation or would otherwise be illegal under domestic law were they performed for non-religious reasons,

REQUESTS member states, notwithstanding Clause Five, to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that would otherwise be illegal under domestic law were they performed for non-religious reasons unless such rituals:

cause harm to other sapient beings,
cause undue suffering to non-sapient living beings, or
cause damage to the property of other sapient beings or organisations without their consent,

CLARIFIES that Clause Six does not apply to religious rituals which contradict extant WA legislation,

REQUIRES that member states must also respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,

FORBIDS member states from discriminating against sapient beings purely on the basis of their religious belief or lack thereof, unless such discrimination is necessary to ensure that individuals are not forced to perform acts which are prohibited according to their religious belief,

DECLARES that member states have the right to establish an official religion, so long as they do not discriminate against individuals of other faiths or of no faith in doing so,

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as a statement by the World Assembly on the validity of certain religious beliefs.

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING that many inhabitants of member states have strong and often deep religious convictions,

BELIEVING that individuals should have a right to such convictions,

CONCERNED that some member states may attempt to intrude on this right,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there may be a compelling public interest to restrict this right under certain circumstances,

WISHING to remain neutral on the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

DEFINES a "religious belief", for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

DEFINES a "religious ritual", for the purposes of this resolution, as an act which is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

DEFINES a "request", for the purposes of this resolution and of putting an end to frivolous arguments, as a recommendation,

AFFIRMS the right of all sapient beings within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,

REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals, unless such rituals contradict extant WA legislation or would otherwise be illegal under domestic law were they performed for non-religious reasons,

REQUESTS member states, notwithstanding Clause Five, to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that would otherwise be illegal under domestic law were they performed for non-religious reasons, unless such rituals:

cause harm to other sapient beings,
cause undue suffering to non-sapient living beings,
cause damage to the property of other sapient beings or organisations without their consent, or
contradict extant WA legislation,

REQUIRES that member states must also respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,

FORBIDS member states from discriminating against sapient beings purely on the basis of their religious belief or lack thereof, unless such discrimination is necessary to ensure that individuals are not forced to perform acts which are prohibited according to their religious belief,

DECLARES that member states have the right to establish an official religion, so long as they do not discriminate against individuals of other faiths or of no faith in doing so,

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as a statement by the World Assembly on the validity of religious beliefs or of religious unbelief.

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING that many inhabitants of member states have strong and often deep religious convictions,

CONVINCED that individuals have a universal right to their own religious beliefs,

CONCERNED that, in some member states, this right is threatened by the actions of the government or the prevailing cultural or religious practices,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there may be a compelling public interest to restrict this right under certain circumstances, such as the health and safety of others,

WISHING to remain neutral on the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

DEFINES a religious ritual, for the purposes of this resolution, as an act which is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

DEFINES a request, for the purposes of this resolution and of putting an end to frivolous arguments, as a recommendation,

AFFIRMS the right of all sapient beings within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,

MANDATES that member states must also respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,

REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that do not otherwise break the laws of the member state or of the World Assembly,

REQUESTS member states, notwithstanding Clause Six, to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that otherwise break the laws of the member state, unless such rituals:

cause harm to other sapient beings,
cause undue suffering to non-sapient living beings,
cause damage to the property of other sapient beings or organisations without their consent, or
contradict extant WA legislation,

FORBIDS member states from discriminating against sapient beings purely on the basis of their religious belief or lack thereof, unless such discrimination is necessary to ensure that individuals are not forced to perform acts which are prohibited according to their religious belief,

DECLARES that member states have the right to establish an official religion, so long as they do not discriminate against individuals holding other religious beliefs or holding no religion belief in doing so,

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as a statement by the World Assembly on the validity of religious beliefs or the lack thereof.

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING that many inhabitants of member states have strong and often deep religious convictions,

CONVINCED that individuals have a universal right to their own religious beliefs,

CONCERNED that, in some member states, this right is threatened by the actions of the government or the prevailing cultural or religious practices,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there may be a compelling public interest to restrict this right under certain circumstances, such as the health and safety of others,

WISHING to remain neutral regarding the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

DEFINES a religious ritual, for the purposes of this resolution, as an act which is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

DEFINES a request, for the purposes of this resolution and of putting an end to frivolous arguments, as a recommendation,

AFFIRMS the right of all sapient beings within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,

MANDATES that member states must also respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,

REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that do not otherwise break the laws of the member state or of the World Assembly,

REQUESTS member states, notwithstanding Clause Six, to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that otherwise break the laws of the member state, unless such rituals:

cause harm to other sapient beings,
cause undue suffering to non-sapient living beings,
cause damage to the property of other sapient beings or organisations without their consent, or
contradict extant WA legislation,

FORBIDS member states from discriminating against sapient beings purely on the basis of their religious belief or lack thereof, unless such discrimination is necessary to ensure that individuals are not forced to perform acts which are prohibited according to their religious belief,

DECLARES that member states have the right to establish an official religion, so long as they do not discriminate against individuals holding other religious beliefs or holding no religion belief in doing so,

DECLARES that the World Assembly shall make no statement on the validity of religious beliefs or the lack thereof.

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING that many inhabitants of member states have strong and often deep religious convictions,

CONVINCED that individuals have a universal right to their own religious beliefs,

CONCERNED that, in some member states, this right is threatened by the actions of the government or the prevailing cultural or religious practices,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there may be a compelling public interest to restrict this right under certain circumstances, such as the health and safety of others,

WISHING to remain neutral regarding the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

DEFINES a religious ritual, for the purposes of this resolution, as an act which is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

DEFINES a request, for the purposes of this resolution and of putting an end to frivolous arguments, as a recommendation,

AFFIRMS the right of all individuals within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,

MANDATES that member states must also respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,

REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that do not otherwise break the laws of the member state or of the World Assembly,

REQUESTS member states, notwithstanding Clause Six, to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that otherwise break the laws of the member state, unless such rituals:

cause harm to other individuals,
cause undue suffering to non-sapient living beings,
cause damage to the property of other individuals or organisations without their consent, or
contradict extant WA legislation,

FORBIDS member states from discriminating against individuals purely on the basis of their religious belief or lack thereof, unless such discrimination is necessary to ensure that such individuals are not forced to perform acts which are prohibited according to their religious belief,

DECLARES that member states have the right to establish an official religion, so long as they do not discriminate against individuals holding other religious beliefs or holding no religion belief in doing so,

DECLARES that the World Assembly shall make no statement on the validity of religious beliefs or the lack thereof.

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING that many inhabitants of member states have strong and often deep religious convictions,

CONVINCED that individuals have a universal right to their own religious beliefs,

CONCERNED that, in some member states, this right is threatened by the actions of the government or the prevailing cultural or religious practices,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there may be a compelling public interest to restrict this right under certain circumstances, such as the health and safety of others,

WISHING to remain neutral regarding the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

DEFINES a religious ritual, for the purposes of this resolution, as an act that is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

DEFINES a request, for the purposes of present and future international legislation and of putting an end to frivolous arguments, as an optional, non-mandatory and non-binding recommendation,

CLARIFIES that Clause Eight is optional,

AFFIRMS the right of all individuals within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,

REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that do not otherwise break national or international laws,

CLARIFIES that the below clause is optional,

REQUESTS member states, notwithstanding Clause Six, to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that otherwise break national laws, unless such rituals:

cause harm to other individuals,
cause undue suffering to non-sapient living beings,
cause damage to the property of other individuals or organisations without their consent, or
contradict extant WA legislation,

CLARIFIES that the above clause is optional,

FORBIDS member states from discriminating against individuals purely on the basis of their religious belief without a reasonable and compelling justification that abides by the spirit of this resolution,

DECLARES that the World Assembly shall make no statement on the validity of religious beliefs or the lack thereof,

REITERATES that Clause Eight is optional.

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong

The World Assembly,

NOTING that many inhabitants of member states have strong and often deep religious convictions,

CONVINCED that individuals have a universal right to their own religious beliefs,

CONCERNED that, in some member states, this right is threatened by the actions of the government or the prevailing cultural or religious practices,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there may be a compelling public interest to restrict this right under certain circumstances, such as the health and safety of others,

WISHING to remain neutral regarding the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

DEFINES a religious ritual, for the purposes of this resolution, as an act that is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

DEFINES a request, for the purposes of present and future international legislation and of putting an end to frivolous arguments, as an optional, non-mandatory and non-binding recommendation,

CLARIFIES that Clause Eight is optional,

AFFIRMS the right of all individuals within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,

REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that do not otherwise break national or international laws,

CLARIFIES that the below clause is optional,

REQUESTS member states, notwithstanding Clause Six, to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that otherwise break national laws, unless such rituals:

cause harm to other individuals,
cause undue suffering to non-sapient living beings,
cause damage to the property of other individuals or organisations without their consent, or
contradict extant WA legislation,

CLARIFIES that the above clause is optional,

CLARIFIES further that religious belief shall not constitute a legal defence, aggravation or extenuating circumstance in any situation other than the allowances that a member state willingly chooses to grant under Clause Eight,

FORBIDS member states from discriminating against individuals purely on the basis of their religious belief without a reasonable and compelling justification that abides by the principles laid out in the preamble and by prior unrepealed legislation,

DECLARES that the World Assembly shall make no statement on the validity of religious beliefs or the lack thereof,

REITERATES that Clause Eight is optional.

by **Christian Democrats** » Fri Aug 19, 2016 6:09 pm

The strength should be Strong.
Remove the final preambulatory clause. Some religious beliefs are accurate; some aren't. It's a matter of fact, not opinion.
Section 1 -- religion is not an ideology.
Section 3 -- please use the word "persons" or "people."
Sections 4-5 -- do not provide enough protection for religious liberty and duplicate COCR.
Section 7 -- duplicates and contradicts COCR.
Section 8 -- duplicates COCR.

by **Tinfect** » Fri Aug 19, 2016 6:20 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:Remove the final preambulatory clause. Some religious beliefs are accurate; some aren't. It's a matter of fact, not opinion.

OOC:
That's absolute nonsense and you know it. Muslims think Islam is accurate and Christianity is wrong, Christians think Christianity is accurate and Hinduism is wrong, Hindus think that Hinduism is accurate and Sikhs are wrong. Just because yours sounds right to you doesn't mean that other people don't see it as absolute nonsense.

Christian Democrats wrote:Section 3 -- please use the word "persons" or "people."

Why? Sapient Being is a more accurate term, and plenty resolutions have used similar wording in the past. Plus, it neatly bypasses any 'Animals/Plants/Rocks are People Too' nonsense.

Christian Democrats wrote:Sections 4-5 -- [...] duplicate COCR.
Section 7 -- duplicates and contradicts COCR.
Section 8 -- duplicates COCR.

Yeah, he's right here, there is nothing here that COCR doesn't already do better.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Fri Aug 19, 2016 6:28 pm

States of Glory WA Office wrote:
4) REQUIRES member states to legalise all religious rituals unless they contradict extant WA legislation or would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons,

"This would be better read as "not criminalize" instead of "legalize". One has a less implicit encouragement in action."

6) REQUIRES that member states must also respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,

"Define 'respect'. Not in the proposal, but to me. If it is to not impede upon or discriminate against a belief, your previous clauses have done so. If it is to not encourage a particular believe, you'll find resistance from theocracies and atheistic societies alike."

11) PROHIBITS member states from intentionally or negligently damaging, vandalising or destroying holy sites which have been designated as such by the WARF,

"Ambassador, if we have to place a utility line through somebody's sacred mud wall, we should be able to exercise eminent domain the same as if the site was somebody's home. That there is a religious significance to a site should not stand in the way of industrial progress."

WISHING to remain neutral on the accuracy of religious beliefs,

"Please keep this."

"We have little care for the rest of this. The C.D.S.P. is tolerant of beliefs equally: my government does it's best to ignore spirituality as a government priority, and lets people believe whatever they care to believe. Our considerations reflect that disinterest in matters spiritual."

by **Christian Democrats** » Fri Aug 19, 2016 8:11 pm

Tinfect wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Remove the final preambulatory clause. Some religious beliefs are accurate; some aren't. It's a matter of fact, not opinion.

OOC:
That's absolute nonsense and you know it. Muslims think Islam is accurate and Christianity is wrong, Christians think Christianity is accurate and Hinduism is wrong, Hindus think that Hinduism is accurate and Sikhs are wrong. Just because yours sounds right to you doesn't mean that other people don't see it as absolute nonsense.

Different people can't have different truths. Christians, for example, say that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified; Muslims, on the other hand, say that Jesus of Nazareth was not crucified. It's a matter of fact whether or not Jesus of Nazareth died on a cross in first-century Judea. Christians and Muslims can't both be right.

It might be warm and fuzzy to say that all people have their own truths, but it's not correct. Your argument is about as sensible as saying: "Some people think vaccinations cause autism; some people disagree. Just because your position on the safety of vaccinations sounds right to you doesn't mean that other people don't see it as absolute nonsense."

by **Tinfect** » Fri Aug 19, 2016 11:11 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:Different people can't have different truths. Christians, for example, say that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified; Muslims, on the other hand, say that Jesus of Nazareth was not crucified. It's a matter of fact whether or not Jesus of Nazareth died on a cross in first-century Judea. Christians and Muslims can't both be right.
It might be warm and fuzzy to say that all people have their own truths, but it's not correct. Your argument is about as sensible as saying: "Some people think vaccinations cause autism; some people disagree. Just because your position on the safety of vaccinations sounds right to you doesn't mean that other people don't see it as absolute nonsense."

OOC:
Okay, despite what you may believe, there is a difference between scientific/historical fact and theological disagreements. Sure, it's a matter of fact whether or not he was crucified, but it's a matter of theology whether or not he was the son of god. That's what I'm talking about, and pretending otherwise is simply dishonest.

Vaccines verifiably don't cause Autism, that's not in question, and the fact that people believe otherwise is the result of media hysteria preying on societies current complete lack of basic scientific knowledge. Whether Jesus was the son of god or just one of many prophets is completely unverifiable, and is not a matter of truth, rather one of belief. When you can scientifically prove that Jesus was the son of god, you can talk about truth.

by **Bananaistan** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 12:09 am

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan will maintain its longstanding opposition to the singling out of belief in imaginary friends and superstitious nonsense for special protection in international law. We believe it is adequately protected by current international law, in GAR#27, Freedom of Assembly, GAR#30, Freedom of Expression, and GAR#35, The Charter of Civil Rights, among other resolutions. We will be unable to support this proposal regardless of its final form.

"Leaving this aside, I will offer some specific comments on certain parts of the proposal which may (or may not) be of assistance in further drafting.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:1) DEFINES a "religious belief", for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

"This definition would appear to make the whole proposal applicable only to beliefs which have been set out by some authority external to the individual. Surely the proposal should equally apply to beliefs which have not been formally dogamtised by organised religions?

States of Glory WA Office wrote:2) DEFINES a "religious ritual", for the purposes of this resolution, as an act which is committed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

"Fair enough.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:3) AFFIRMS the right of all sapient beings within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,

"Is this really necessary? You might as well say that people have the right to think and feel.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:4) REQUIRES member states to legalise all religious rituals unless they contradict extant WA legislation or would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons,

"I would agree with the comments from the CDSP delegation on this clause. We don't have a list of what religious rituals don't break the law, and we'd rather not have to generate one. Perhaps the clause could be restated as a prohibition of the criminalisation or regulation of religious rituals which would otherwise be legal were they not performed for religious reasons.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:5) REQUESTS member states to legalise religious rituals that would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons if such rituals do not cause harm to other sapient beings,

"Perhaps you might explain your thinking in this one. I don't immediately see that it does anything that clause 4 doesn't.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:6) REQUIRES that member states must also respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,

"My same query would apply here as to clause 3. I don't see that it does anything practical or tangible.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:7) FORBIDS member states from discriminating against sapient beings purely on the basis of their religious belief or lack thereof, unless such discrimination is necessary to ensure that individuals are not forced to perform acts which are prohibited according to their religious belief,

"While this may well be a duplication of GAR#35, I do not see it as an illegal duplication. The secretariat's policy on duplication clearly allows this as "authors may re-iterate in general terms a minor part of existing policy to provide support to their proposal." At best this is minor overlap which has been permitted in the past.

"The clause looks to be fair and reasonable to me.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:8) DECLARES that member states have the right to establish an official religion, so long as they do not discriminate against individuals of other faiths or of no faith in doing so,

"The first part of this clause does not duplicate existing legislation to my knowledge. The second part is at best minor overlap.

"The clause looks to be fair and reasonable to me.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:9) ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Religion Foundation (hereby referred to as the WARF),

10) TASKS the WARF with designating holy sites within member states,

11) PROHIBITS member states from intentionally or negligently damaging, vandalising or destroying holy sites which have been designated as such by the WARF,

"Is it really necessary to have another gaggle of WA civil servants traipsing around member states telling us that we must not even look funny at certain sites? I would draw your attention to GAR#287.

"Additionally, there is insufficient guidance provided to the committee here. Just what is a holy site and why should it be so deserving of protection?

States of Glory WA Office wrote:12) CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as a statement by the World Assembly on the validity of certain religious beliefs.

"Needless fluff which adds nothing considering the last preambulatory clause."

- Ted Hornwood

by **Christian Democrats** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:28 am

Tinfect wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Different people can't have different truths. Christians, for example, say that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified; Muslims, on the other hand, say that Jesus of Nazareth was not crucified. It's a matter of fact whether or not Jesus of Nazareth died on a cross in first-century Judea. Christians and Muslims can't both be right.
It might be warm and fuzzy to say that all people have their own truths, but it's not correct. Your argument is about as sensible as saying: "Some people think vaccinations cause autism; some people disagree. Just because your position on the safety of vaccinations sounds right to you doesn't mean that other people don't see it as absolute nonsense."

OOC:
Okay, despite what you may believe, there is a difference between scientific/historical fact and theological disagreements. Sure, it's a matter of fact whether or not he was crucified, but it's a matter of theology whether or not he was the son of god. That's what I'm talking about, and pretending otherwise is simply dishonest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

Different religions claim contradictory things. It is simply not possible for all of them to be right.

Tinfect wrote:Whether Jesus was the son of god or just one of many prophets is completely unverifiable, and is not a matter of truth, rather one of belief. When you can scientifically prove that Jesus was the son of god, you can talk about truth.

You're suffering from scientism. Asking someone to prove that Jesus is the Son of God scientifically is like asking someone to prove that a carbon atom has six protons historically or that Charlemagne died in 814 linguistically.

(Also, God is capitalized when singular.)

by **Merni** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:38 am

Christian Democrats wrote:
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Okay, despite what you may believe, there is a difference between scientific/historical fact and theological disagreements. Sure, it's a matter of fact whether or not he was crucified, but it's a matter of theology whether or not he was the son of god. That's what I'm talking about, and pretending otherwise is simply dishonest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

Different religions claim contradictory things. It is simply not possible for all of them to be right.

(Also, God is capitalized when singular.)

Does a religious belief have to be true in order for people to believe it, and for their belief to come under freedom of religion?

Also, how is it possible to find out which belief is true?

(I refrain from using the word "right" here because it is subjective.)

Also, the word "god" might be capitalised when referring to a monotheistic god, but when referring to a polytheistic god it is not. You say "the god Zeus", not "the God Zeus"

Finally, I have a problem with Clause 5. The way I see it, it allows harming of non-sapient (but living) beings for religious rituals. That should not be allowed.

by **Calladan** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:46 am

Bananaistan wrote:
3) AFFIRMS the right of all sapient beings within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,

"Is this really necessary? You might as well say that people have the right to think and feel.

Actually, there is a movement afoot in Calladan (a very small movement) to prevent just this. The last time we had a national religion, it took over the country and killed several hundred thousand people for not being true believers, so there are people who think we should do away with religion altogether.

We (my Tri-Arch and I) don't believe that - if people want to cling to a belief in their imaginary friend, who are we to stop them? As long as they don't try to make me be friends with him/her/it (and as long as they don't do it at the point of the sword, so to speak) then what does it bother me that they put on a long flowwy dress and a silly hat and pretend to be vampires every seventh day? (Said with all due respect of course).

So despite Calladan being one of the most secular and most irreligious nations around, we kind of like the idea of written protection for it.

by **Calladan** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:59 am

Given a previous proposal on this, and my country's history with religion, I was wary about the title of this proposal and what it might contain.

However I have to admit I am - at least initially - more or less in favour. The pre-amble pretty much defines the situation in Calladan as it is - we want to let people follow whatever religion they see fit, but not to the point where they are torching other people's houses of worship or sacrificing virgins in Misanthrope Park - and there is nothing overly worrying in any of the clauses.

The requirement to allow nations to have a national religion - we currently have laws against that (see our history for the reason why) but since it doesn't force us to establish a national religion, we can work around it for now (and given the process for changing the foundational laws in Calladan, I suspect it will never become an issue).

11) PROHIBITS member states from intentionally or negligently damaging, vandalising or destroying holy sites which have been designated as such by the WARF,

This will sound an odd question, but what classes as damage or vandalism? If we need to do some work in and around a site - work that can not be put off due to serious safety concerns (such as walls falling down, gas mains needing repairing otherwise they will explode taking half the town with them etc) - and we have to dig up or damage part of the site to do it, we reserve the right to do the work (no matter the damage) but we will agree to restore the site to what it was before the work when we are done (or as near as we can). But while we respect the religious beliefs of our citizens, we are not going to let a town be blown up in a gas explosion because of those beliefs.

by **Jarish Inyo** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 3:06 am

So now The WA is going to tell religions what their holy sites are? Do nations and religions really need the WA for that?

by **Calladan** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 3:12 am

Jarish Inyo wrote:So now The WA is going to tell religions what their holy sites are? Do nations and religions really need the WA for that?

I kind of got the idea that the member states (and religions) would tell the WARF, and the WARF would put them on a register. And while the nation in which the site resides doesn't necessarily need help with that, it would prevent other nations from damaging it (say during bombing or ground invasions or the like).

by **Mattopilos** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 3:16 am

Christian Democrats wrote:
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Okay, despite what you may believe, there is a difference between scientific/historical fact and theological disagreements. Sure, it's a matter of fact whether or not he was crucified, but it's a matter of theology whether or not he was the son of god. That's what I'm talking about, and pretending otherwise is simply dishonest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

Different religions claim contradictory things. It is simply not possible for all of them to be right.

Tinfect wrote:Whether Jesus was the son of god or just one of many prophets is completely unverifiable, and is not a matter of truth, rather one of belief. When you can scientifically prove that Jesus was the son of god, you can talk about truth.

You're suffering from scientism. Asking someone to prove that Jesus is the Son of God scientifically is like asking someone to prove that a carbon atom has six protons historically or that Charlemagne died in 814 linguistically.

(Also, God is capitalized when singular.)

OOC: Really, using the "scientism" slur? That is low, not to mention absurd. Asking for evidence is justified unless it is clearly without a doubt true/false. What he is referring to is a logical way to think about a religious argument: it can't be proven, and God is a non-materialist being, so it makes sense to have doubt in the claim unless evidence for the fact is found. That, and your counter argument is absurd as well. It COULD be scientifically proven if it were material and proving it in any way listed other than scientifically is impossible - that makes the whole "let me be smug" paragraph moot. And Law of contradiction wasn't being argued against - he is simply saying it makes little difference when it comes to a theological claim since it cannot be proven true.

Oh, and I will use god without a capital all I want.

by **Bears Armed** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 4:48 am

"My government is in general support of this principle, and indeed we have done some preliminary work on producing a draft proposal on the subject -- although we have not yet shown any version of it to this Chamber's members -- ourrselves. For now, apart from expressing support, I will just point out one potential problem with the existing text:"

4) REQUIRES member states to legalise all religious rituals unless they contradict extant WA legislation or would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons,

"Where any particular religious rituals involve actions that would be unusual in any other context in the nation concerned, a national government could still legally ban those practices for everybody without seriously affecting -- or receiving strong complaints from -- many of its other people: For example, if the followers of one faith are theologically required to wear clothing of the colour Violet during their rites, and everybody else in the nation is reasonably happy with wearing only clothing in the traditional choices of black, gray, or white, then a national government which wanted to suppress that faith could simply impose a national ban on violet clothing without much likely difficulty...
"One would have to word any such mandated exemption from general laws so as to exclude situations where the illegal acts would actually involve harm to other people or their property (or, in the case of fellow-believers and their property, at least that did so non-consensually), of course -- and maybeso then also clarify that governments couldn't count some outsiders being confused or annoyed by evidence of those practices as "harmful" -- but that should be possible. Oh, and you'd probably have to include a preambulatory clause stating that protecting people's right to follow their faiths' doctrines & practices was a "sufficiently compelling purpose" for such exemption, and that as long as the general principle applied equally to all religions rather than just to one in particular (and to new members of them, as well as to existing ones) then it didn't constitute 'unfair' discrimination."

Bananaistan wrote:"The People's Republic of Bananaistan will maintain its longstanding opposition to the singling out of belief in imaginary friends and superstitious nonsense for special protection in international law. We believe it is adequately protected by current international law, in GAR#27, Freedom of Assembly, GAR#30, Freedom of Expression, and GAR#35, The Charter of Civil Rights, among other resolutions."

"Whilst in the opinion of my homeland's government, the hostile attitude of regimes such as yours to Faith is main reason why such international protection for religious activity is necessary.
"Furthermore, I would point out that as this Assembly has already passed resolutions on various other rights -- as you, yourself, admit here -- it is hardly "singling out" this particular right for protection.
"As for your dismissal of all religious beliefs as "imaginary" and as "superstitious nonsense", I would point out that despite your own nation's apparent ignorance of such matters some nations actually have proof that various Beings mentioned in their religions' teachings exist. For example, if I can access this verry building's own public records"... (Artorrios fiddle briefly with the electronics on his desk)"Ah, here we are."
After a few seconds the chamber's main screen replays footage of an event that actually happened, just a few years ago, on these very premises.

Separatist Peoples wrote:
11) PROHIBITS member states from intentionally or negligently damaging, vandalising or destroying holy sites which have been designated as such by the WARF,

"Ambassador, if we have to place a utility line through somebody's sacred mud wall, we should be able to exercise eminent domain the same as if the site was somebody's home. That there is a religious significance to a site should not stand in the way of industrial progress."

"Even though that wall is likely to be considered important, and less replaceable, by rather more people than is any individual house?
"Mind you, my homeland doesn't even regard the concept of 'eminent domain' as legal on the first paw..."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

by **Bananaistan** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:34 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:"The People's Republic of Bananaistan will maintain its longstanding opposition to the singling out of belief in imaginary friends and superstitious nonsense for special protection in international law. We believe it is adequately protected by current international law, in GAR#27, Freedom of Assembly, GAR#30, Freedom of Expression, and GAR#35, The Charter of Civil Rights, among other resolutions."

"Whilst in the opinion of my homeland's government, the hostile attitude of regimes such as yours to Faith is main reason why such international protection for religious activity is necessary.
"Furthermore, I would point out that as this Assembly has already passed resolutions on various other rights -- as you, yourself, admit here -- it is hardly "singling out" this particular right for protection.

"In Bananaistan we utterly respect people's freedom of religion through such things as freedom of speech, freedom of association and our general attitude of letting people do whatever they wish to do when it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights. The fact that many state officials, such as me, do not hide our disdain of religion, cannot be taken to mean that we are some sort of totalitarian state which would attempt to abridge people's right to believe and practice whatever religion they wish to. However, in so far as is practicable, the government's official policy is to ignore religion in the hope that it will eventually go away and all reference to religion in our laws is kept to the absolute minimum that is necessary to uphold the aforementioned rights and to protect people from discrimination based on their religious beliefs, and we do not particularly wish to have our hand forced in explicitly recognising further rights based solely on religion.

"Having said that, we would rather not dwell on our opposition to the proposal as we intend to offer whatever assistance we can in helping the authors achieve their aims for the proposal in the best possible fashion."

Bears Armed wrote:"As for your dismissal of all religious beliefs as "imaginary" and as "superstitious nonsense", I would point out that despite your own nation's apparent ignorance of such matters some nations actually have proof that various Beings mentioned in their religions' teachings exist. For example, if I can access this verry building's own public records"... (Artorrios fiddle briefly with the electronics on his desk)"Ah, here we are."
After a few seconds the chamber's main screen replays footage of an event that actually happened, just a few years ago, on these very premises.

"A mere trick of the light no doubt. Or fancy camera work."

- Ted Hornwood

OOC: Yeah, this is almost impossible to reply to IC and is as good as forcing me to roleplay that gods are real and religions are fact based systems rather than faiths. Thanks for that.

by **Bears Armed** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:54 am

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Yeah, this is almost impossible to reply to IC and is as good as forcing me to roleplay that gods are real and religions are fact based systems rather than faiths. Thanks for that.

OOC: You can't have your ambassador try to rationalise it away somehow, or RP a difference in opinions developing on the matter between your ambassador and government? I was far from being the first player to introduce "verifiably" supernatural elements to UN/WA/GA RP, and I've seen people try both of those approaches in response to it in the past... as, indeed, people have taken those same approaches to the verifiable existence of either non-human sapients or 'Future Tech' nations here when their governments haven't believed in those...

by **Bananaistan** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:57 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Yeah, this is almost impossible to reply to IC and is as good as forcing me to roleplay that gods are real and religions are fact based systems rather than faiths. Thanks for that.

OOC: You can't have your ambassador try to rationalise it away somehow, or RP a difference in opinions developing on the matter between your ambassador and government? I was far from being the first player to introduce "verifiably" supernatural elements to UN/WA/GA RP, and I've seen people try both of those approaches in response to it in the past... as, indeed, people have taken those same approaches to the verifiable existence of non-human sapients here when their governments haven't believed in those...

OOC: Well I had edited in an IC response prior to your post here. But I think it's rather unfair in a debate about religion to just post something that's effectively saying look, here's a god, therefore your views on religion are invalid.

by **States of Glory WA Office** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 8:14 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Define 'respect'. Not in the proposal, but to me. If it is to not impede upon or discriminate against a belief, your previous clauses have done so. If it is to not encourage a particular believe, you'll find resistance from theocracies and atheistic societies alike."

Neville: You'll be relieved to know that it's the former. I'm keeping that clause for now, however. It's the only clause in the entire proposal that actually protects an individual's right not to hold any religious beliefs.

Bananaistan wrote:"The People's Republic of Bananaistan will maintain its longstanding opposition to the singling out of belief in imaginary friends and superstitious nonsense for special protection in international law.

Neville: Thankfully, this draft has nothing to do with superstitions or imaginary friends. It's main concern is religion.

Bananaistan wrote:
States of Glory WA Office wrote:1) DEFINES a "religious belief", for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,

"This definition would appear to make the whole proposal applicable only to beliefs which have been set out by some authority external to the individual. Surely the proposal should equally apply to beliefs which have not been formally dogamtised by organised religions?

Neville: I agree with you, but I have no idea how to include those. Defining 'religion' was always going to be difficult. Do you have any suggestions?

Bananaistan wrote:
States of Glory WA Office wrote:3) AFFIRMS the right of all sapient beings within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,

"Is this really necessary? You might as well say that people have the right to think and feel.

Neville: Yes, I do believe that it is necessary to prevent the idea of "thoughtcrime".

Bananaistan wrote:
States of Glory WA Office wrote:5) REQUESTS member states to legalise religious rituals that would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons if such rituals do not cause harm to other sapient beings,

"Perhaps you might explain your thinking in this one. I don't immediately see that it does anything that clause 4 doesn't.

Neville: Clause Four deals with rituals that wouldn't be illegal if they were performed for non-religious reasons. Clause Five deals with rituals that would be illegal if they were performed for non-religious reasons. It basically allows member states to create religious exemptions, but it doesn't require them to.

Bananaistan wrote:
States of Glory WA Office wrote:9) ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Religion Foundation (hereby referred to as the WARF),

10) TASKS the WARF with designating holy sites within member states,

11) PROHIBITS member states from intentionally or negligently damaging, vandalising or destroying holy sites which have been designated as such by the WARF,

"Is it really necessary to have another gaggle of WA civil servants traipsing around member states telling us that we must not even look funny at certain sites? I would draw your attention to GAR#287.

Neville: Would a holy site necessarily count as being culturally significant? If it would then we could cut this entire section from the proposal.

Bananaistan wrote:
States of Glory WA Office wrote:12) CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as a statement by the World Assembly on the validity of certain religious beliefs.

"Needless fluff which adds nothing considering the last preambulatory clause."

Neville: Preambulatory clauses do nothing. Without this active clause, the last preambulatory clause would be worthless.

We also appreciate your delegation's assistance, even if you have no intention of voting for this proposal (OOC: Although you do sort of owe me one for helping you with Sexual Privacy Act

).

Bears Armed wrote:-snip-

Neville: Um...that seems like quite a rare problem, to be honest. We'd like to deal with it nonetheless. However, your suggestion that religious rituals should only be outlawed if they harm other sapient beings may not sit well with those nations who wish to remove religion from the public sphere completely. Perhaps a compromise could be decided?

Merni wrote:Finally, I have a problem with Clause 5. The way I see it, it allows harming of non-sapient (but living) beings for religious rituals. That should not be allowed.

OOC: I only just saw this. For what it's worth, Clause Five is optional, but I'll change it nonetheless.

I've modified the proposal in response to some criticisms, especially regarding holy sites. However, this has resulted in an absolute giant of a proposal. It's possible that the section on holy sites will be removed completely at some point, but in the meantime, advice for shortening this would be welcome.

Also, if I've missed any criticisms or if I haven't adequately responded to them, please feel free to let me know.

Edit: Duplication, of course! I knew I forgot something! I actually think Bananaistan summed this up well. This proposal duplicates a very small part of CoCR and that duplication is only one section in this proposal.

by **Tinfect** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 11:37 am

Christian Democrats wrote:Different religions claim contradictory things. It is simply not possible for all of them to be right.

OOC:
Sure, and until someone can prove one of them right, they're all equally valid. Seeing as how its more or less impossible to prove a Religion, that's all they'll ever be.

Christian Democrats wrote:You're suffering from scientism. Asking someone to prove that Jesus is the Son of God scientifically is like asking someone to prove that a carbon atom has six protons historically or that Charlemagne died in 814 linguistically.

What in all the nine hells are you on about? I'm not even sure whether or not to justify this drivel with a response.

Christian Democrats wrote:(Also, God is capitalized when singular.)

Oh, good, we're correcting eachother's grammar now. When you have actual argumentation, feel free to respond.

IC:

States of Glory WA Office wrote:CONCERNED that some member states may attempt to intrude on this right,

"A concern that is rendered nonexistent by extant legislation."

States of Glory WA Office wrote:8) DECLARES that member states have the right to establish an official religion, so long as they do not discriminate against individuals of other faiths or of no faith in doing so,

"The Imperium is opposed to any legislation that seeks to provide specific legitimacy to theocratic states."

States of Glory WA Office wrote:10) TASKS the WARF with designating holy sites within member states,
11) PROHIBITS member states from intentionally or negligently damaging, vandalising or destroying holy sites which have been designated as such by the WARF,
12) ALLOWS member states to construct public buildings and facilities on designated holy sites if there is no other location where such construction can practically take place,
13) MANDATES that member states make a good-faith effort to preserve designated holy sites for religious use in the course of any construction which may take place on that site,
14) MANDATES that member states make a good-faith effort to restore designated holy sites to their former state once any construction on that site is completed, unless doing so is not possible,

"This is absolutely unacceptable. The Imperium will do with its territory as it wishes; the World Assembly has placed far too many regulations on such as it stands, we will not allow more to be established, and certainly not those that intend for the Imperium to respect mythologies. These sites will undoubtedly be utilized as military staging points, as the forces within them know that so long as they remain within the boundaries of the site, they are effectively invincible. Further, this 'Religious Foundation' has absolutely no guidelines on what constitutes a religious site, and this legislation why such a thing is substantially different from any historical or cultural site.

The above being said, the Imperium wishes to reaffirm its stance that belief in such mythologies is an aspect of primitivism, and one that is extremely dangerous, driving criminal activity, oppression, warfare, and the obstruction of progress. We see no reason to allow such beliefs and those that hold them to damage the interests of the Imperium, in order to provide 'respect' for a belief that has none for the Imperium."

by **Christian Democrats** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:19 pm

Merni wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

Different religions claim contradictory things. It is simply not possible for all of them to be right.

(Also, God is capitalized when singular.)

Does a religious belief have to be true in order for people to believe it,

Yes, it should be.

Merni wrote:and for their belief to come under freedom of religion?

No. Just as freedom of speech doesn't protect only right speech, freedom of religion doesn't protect only true religion.

Merni wrote:Also, how is it possible to find out which belief is true?

It's not possible to answer this question succinctly.

Merni wrote:Also, the word "god" might be capitalised when referring to a monotheistic god, but when referring to a polytheistic god it is not. You say "the god Zeus", not "the God Zeus"

Allow me to amend my earlier statement.

God is capitalized when conceived as a singular entity. When the divine is (mis)conceived as a plurality of entities, god is lowercase.

Mattopilos wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:You're suffering from scientism. Asking someone to prove that Jesus is the Son of God scientifically is like asking someone to prove that a carbon atom has six protons historically or that Charlemagne died in 814 linguistically.

(Also, God is capitalized when singular.)

OOC: Really, using the "scientism" slur? That is low, not to mention absurd. Asking for evidence is justified unless it is clearly without a doubt true/false.

He asked for scientific evidence that Jesus is the Son of God. That's like asking for a geometric proof that Gandhi was Indian. It's nonsensical.

Mattopilos wrote:What he is referring to is a logical way to think about a religious argument: it can't be proven, and God is a non-materialist being, so it makes sense to have doubt in the claim unless evidence for the fact is found.

Natural science studies material things. It can't be used to talk about immaterial things.

Mattopilos wrote:proving it in any way listed other than scientifically is impossible

So you suffer from scientism as well.

by **States of Glory WA Office** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 2:24 pm

Tinfect wrote:
States of Glory WA Office wrote:CONCERNED that some member states may attempt to intrude on this right,

"A concern that is rendered nonexistent by extant legislation."

Neville: I wouldn't be so sure, Ambassador Markhov. Show me how this entire proposal is rendered irrelevant.

Tinfect wrote:
States of Glory WA Office wrote:8) DECLARES that member states have the right to establish an official religion, so long as they do not discriminate against individuals of other faiths or of no faith in doing so,

"The Imperium is opposed to any legislation that seeks to provide specific legitimacy to theocratic states."

Neville: Good for you. I'd rather ensure that this proposal actually has a chance of passing.

Tinfect wrote:
States of Glory WA Office wrote:10) TASKS the WARF with designating holy sites within member states,
11) PROHIBITS member states from intentionally or negligently damaging, vandalising or destroying holy sites which have been designated as such by the WARF,
12) ALLOWS member states to construct public buildings and facilities on designated holy sites if there is no other location where such construction can practically take place,
13) MANDATES that member states make a good-faith effort to preserve designated holy sites for religious use in the course of any construction which may take place on that site,
14) MANDATES that member states make a good-faith effort to restore designated holy sites to their former state once any construction on that site is completed, unless doing so is not possible,

"These sites will undoubtedly be utilized as military staging points, as the forces within them know that so long as they remain within the boundaries of the site, they are effectively invincible.

Neville: So you're opposed to this because you need more military bases? There's more to life than the army, Ambassador Markhov.

Rowan: I'm just wondering why armies haven't been banned yet. We should just learn to, like, love each other!

Neville: Not a good idea, Rowan. Not a good idea.

Tinfect wrote:Further, this 'Religious Foundation' has absolutely no guidelines on what constitutes a religious site, and this legislation why such a thing is substantially different from any historical or cultural site.

Neville: This is the only valid point you make in amongst your anti-religious drivel. If only you spared your breath.

Rowan: You're wasting precious oxygen, man! Think of all the other people out there who don't have access to nature's greatest resource!

Tinfect wrote:The above being said, the Imperium wishes to reaffirm its stance that belief in such mythologies is an aspect of primitivism, and one that is extremely dangerous, driving criminal activity, oppression, warfare, and the obstruction of progress. We see no reason to allow such beliefs and those that hold them to damage the interests of the Imperium, in order to provide 'respect' for a belief that has none for the Imperium."

Neville: Thank you for demonstrating why a resolution on this topic needs to exist. If this is the Imperium's attitude towards religious people then I'd hate to see its attitude towards people with other ideological differences.

by **Tinfect** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 2:40 pm

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Neville: I wouldn't be so sure, Ambassador Markhov. Show me how this entire proposal is rendered irrelevant.

"Of course, Ambassador." Markhov produces a copy of Resolution #30 "Largely redundant, Ambassador, not irrelevant."

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Neville: Good for you. I'd rather ensure that this proposal actually has a chance of passing.

"Then there is no need to include the clause in question. It serves no purpose."

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Neville: So you're opposed to this because you need more military bases? There's more to life than the army, Ambassador Markhov.

"Ambassador, I said nothing of the sort. The sites in question will be utilized by Military Forces, in the event of conflict, it has nothing to do with the construction of military facilities, Ambassador. The concern, is that foreign military forces may take refuge within their own religious sites, or within those established within the Imperium by your proposed 'Religious Foundation'."

by **States of Glory WA Office** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 2:51 pm

Tinfect wrote:
States of Glory WA Office wrote:Neville: I wouldn't be so sure, Ambassador Markhov. Show me how this entire proposal is rendered irrelevant.

"Of course, Ambassador." Markhov produces a copy of Resolution #30 "Largely redundant, Ambassador, not irrelevant."

Neville: That resolution doesn't deal with "thoughtcrime" nor does it deal with religious rituals. There is also nothing in this proposal which deals with expression. I fail to see your argument.

Tinfect wrote:
States of Glory WA Office wrote:Neville: Good for you. I'd rather ensure that this proposal actually has a chance of passing.

"Then there is no need to include the clause in question. It serves no purpose."

Neville: It's meant to appease those governments who are theocracies. That's politics for you.

Tinfect wrote:
States of Glory WA Office wrote:Neville: So you're opposed to this because you need more military bases? There's more to life than the army, Ambassador Markhov.

"Ambassador, I said nothing of the sort. The sites in question will be utilized by Military Forces, in the event of conflict, it has nothing to do with the construction of military facilities, Ambassador. The concern, is that foreign military forces may take refuge within their own religious sites, or within those established within the Imperium by your proposed 'Religious Foundation'."

Neville: Ah, I do appear to have misinterpreted your comments. My bad. While I doubt that the Imperium would have to worry about foreign entities breaching their territory, I do see where you're coming from. Excuse me a minute. (gets his pen out)

OOC edit: OK, this is seriously beginning to reach the character limit. If the general consensus is that holy sites fall under GA #287 a.k.a Cultural Site Preservation then I'd be willing to go ahead and cut all that stuff out.

by **Mattopilos** » Sat Aug 20, 2016 7:17 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Merni wrote:Does a religious belief have to be true in order for people to believe it,

Yes, it should be.

Merni wrote:and for their belief to come under freedom of religion?

No. Just as freedom of speech doesn't protect only right speech, freedom of religion doesn't protect only true religion.

Merni wrote:Also, how is it possible to find out which belief is true?

It's not possible to answer this question succinctly.

Merni wrote:Also, the word "god" might be capitalised when referring to a monotheistic god, but when referring to a polytheistic god it is not. You say "the god Zeus", not "the God Zeus"

Allow me to amend my earlier statement.

God is capitalized when conceived as a singular entity. When the divine is (mis)conceived as a plurality of entities, god is lowercase.

Mattopilos wrote:OOC: Really, using the "scientism" slur? That is low, not to mention absurd. Asking for evidence is justified unless it is clearly without a doubt true/false.

He asked for scientific evidence that Jesus is the Son of God. That's like asking for a geometric proof that Gandhi was Indian. It's nonsensical.

Mattopilos wrote:What he is referring to is a logical way to think about a religious argument: it can't be proven, and God is a non-materialist being, so it makes sense to have doubt in the claim unless evidence for the fact is found.

Natural science studies material things. It can't be used to talk about immaterial things.

Mattopilos wrote:proving it in any way listed other than scientifically is impossible

So you suffer from scientism as well.

The only people who use "scientism" are anti-intellectuals. And admitting it is a non-materialist thing really does make me wonder why people take the non-null hypothesis over the more logical "no significant evidence for god or Jesus as son of god". You would rather use emotive appeals and 'moral' arguments to prove your theological backwash to discredit a procedure of finding evidence for anything materialistic (which the scientific consensus says is the best way to look at evidence) because it can't prove your Views.

[DEFEATED] Freedom of Religion

[DEFEATED] Freedom of Religion

Who is online