[DEFEATED] Freedom of Religion

[Bears Armed]

Eight large he-Bears -- wearing sturdy boots, shirts and [belted] trousers that are khaki in colour, and broad-brimmed hats also in the latter hue that each have a brass badge on the front bearing the inscription

WA
HQ
FD

-- rapidly enter the chamber. Six of them are carrying large fire extinguishers, while the other two are pulling a handcart that carries a selection of other fire-fighting equipment. They look around, and then seven of them relax a bit while the other one -- now carrying a Halligan bar walks across to Neville and Fairburn.
“False alarrum?”, he enquires in a gruff tone.


(OOC: It must have been years since I last had a good excuse to deploy my contribution to this building's staff...)

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Ambassador, Banananananananaistan has a history of censoring free expression. I'd choose my words wisely if I were you.

Neville: Also, this proposal isn't getting nearly enough attention. There's only one thing for it. (activates fire alarm)

Damnit, Ambassador Neville. How many times must the security office warn you about activating the fire alarm because you need attention? Offer the other diplomats free wine or something. Don't make me disable your fire alarm button.

Neville: "Again", Ambassador Whatevertheheckyournameis? I am not a recidivist, I can assure you. It's just that our budget does not extend to the free provisions of alcoholic beverages, though Orange Juliuses are covered. I expect that there are plenty of nations which have paid the World Assembly to sell their drinks in the hall.

Fairburn: Wanna disable our fire alarm button, huh? Over my dead body!

They look around, and then seven of them relax a bit while the other one -- now carrying a Halligan bar walks across to Neville and Fairburn.
“False alarrum?”, he enquires in a gruff tone.

Neville: (looks nervously at Halligan bar) Um, yeah, false alarm. You may leave. Watch out for sapient Halligan bars on the way back.

Fairburn: Now, as riveting as this reunion is, does anyone have any further comments to make on this draft?

(OOC: It must have been years since I last had a good excuse to deploy my contribution to this building's staff...)

OOC: There's been a recent demand for more RP, so I decided to try it out.

[Tahkranul]

Neville: "Again", Ambassador Whatevertheheckyournameis? I am not a recidivist, I can assure you. It's just that our budget does not extend to the free provisions of alcoholic beverages, though Orange Juliuses are covered. I expect that there are plenty of nations which have paid the World Assembly to sell their drinks in the hall.

"Your diplomatic budget doesn't allow for drinks? You poor dear! My budget is allotted almost entirely for drinking -- they know me so well -- wonderful way to make friends. I'll have to open up a tab for you at the bar, darling. It would be too unkind to leave you deprived."

[Separatist Peoples]

Neville: "Again", Ambassador Whatevertheheckyournameis? I am not a recidivist, I can assure you. It's just that our budget does not extend to the free provisions of alcoholic beverages, though Orange Juliuses are covered. I expect that there are plenty of nations which have paid the World Assembly to sell their drinks in the hall.

"Your diplomatic budget doesn't allow for drinks? You poor dear! My budget is allotted almost entirely for drinking -- they know me so well -- wonderful way to make friends. I'll have to open up a tab for you at the bar, darling. It would be too unkind to leave you deprived."

"You guys get a budget? I've been paying my bar tabs with the fees for credit hours from 'internships'."

[Bears Armed]

They look around, and then seven of them relax a bit while the other one -- now carrying a Halligan bar walks across to Neville and Fairburn.
“False alarrum?”, he enquires in a gruff tone.

Neville: (looks nervously at Halligan bar) Um, yeah, false alarm. You may leave. Watch out for sapient Halligan bars on the way back."

The Chief FireBear looks away from Neville with a grunt of surprise, and scans the room warily as he walks back to his team. Before they leave the room, even though they hadn't actually had to fight any fires there, he checks (as regulations require) that everybearry is still present and unharmed.

"Sound off!"

"Pooh!"
"Pooh!"
"Bjarrki!"
"Tallgrew!"
"Cuthbearrh!"
"Diggle!"
" and Grrubbh!"

[Taviana SSR]

We oppose every religion, not as Marxists, but as intelligent humans. Religion is an illusion that provides reasons and excuses to keep society functioning just as it is. Much as capitalism takes productive labor and alienates us from its value, religion takes highest ideals and aspirations and alienates us from them, projecting them onto an alien and unknowable being called a god.

Religion is irrational, a delusion and a worship of appearances that avoids recognizing underlying reality. Is also negates all that is dignified in a human being by rendering them servile and more amenable to accepting the status quo.

In the preface to his doctoral dissertation, Karl Marx adopted as his motto the words of the Greek hero Prometheus who defied the gods to bring fire to humanity: “I hate all gods,” with addition that they “do not recognize man’s self-consciousness as the highest divinity.”

Furthermore, Religion is very hypocritical.Although it might profess valuable principles, it always sides with the oppressors. Jesus advocated helping the poor, but the Christian church merged with the oppressive Roman state, taking part in the enslavement of people for centuries. The problem is that many workers have not yet achieved ideological independence from the petty bourgeoisie and the leaders of Al Qaida, Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State are all representatives of the petty bourgeoisie.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Steph nods to the members of the fire beargade as they file out of the room, then turns toward the Tavanian ambassador.

"Sure, sure, t'vahrish. And boy howdy, it sure is effective to repress religion by force of law. That'll stop 'em believin' in it for sure!" Steph nods her head up and down, and gives a thumbs-up signal. "Works every time."

She shakes her head as if to dispel a hazy vapor of sarcasm wisping hypnotically round her skull, then looks up at the States of Glory delegation.

"Good stuff, Ambassador Nitro - this would close a loophole that's been too tiny to spend serious time on, but big enough to cause headaches among human rights watchers. You can take out the unnecessary definition of 'request,' especially since a recommendation is actually a different thing, and be assured of our support."

OOC: Seriously, I would take it out. I think the "confusion" is insufficient to be feared as a repeal hook, though I appreciate the similarity to the space debris resolutions (where I was proved wrong on a similar point). The difference here is that the request isn't the linchpin of the whole resolution the way "debris" was there.

[Tahkranul]

"You guys get a budget? I've been paying my bar tabs with the fees for credit hours from 'internships'."

Este laughs cordially at this.
"It's rather simple, Bell darling, most diplomats have a budget for expenses such as travel, accommodations, and clothing, yes? I live simply, my office is fine enough for me, though Tahkranul has procured a former bed and breakfast nearby to convert into an embassy -- to better display our dedication to active and peaceful involvement in the World Assembly. I've no need for personal shopping as I'm still receiving gifts of clothes and jewelry from fans of my former career, and our dear Primus is well aware of my informal approach to diplomacy, therefore, he allots me a generous budget with the expectation that the majority of it will be spent on bar bills in the pursuit of building amiable and lasting relations with my fellow delegates and their governments."
She grins at the Assembly and spreads her hands in invitation.
"So, drinks are on me, dears?"

She pauses for the delegate from Taviana SSR to have their lengthy say, lips pursed in thought with an occasional frown. Finally, after the speech is finished, she takes a moment to smooth her blue hair back behind her ears before speaking.
"Dear, you, most certainly, are in need of a drink. Perhaps, after you've taken a breath to calm yourself, darling, you might consider expanding your rather narrow perspective a bit. I doubt I'm the only one not from your world with no idea who the dear individuals you've mentioned even are. These people you call 'Karl Marx,' 'Greek,' and 'Prometheus.' I'm not sure which nation is...Roma? -- but if they are a World Assembly member, then their relationship with this 'Jesus' sapient is entirely their own business.
"Further, not every religion fits the very narrow definition of your lecture, dear. My own people have no 'imaginary figure judging from on high.' Our Ancestors provide us strength, wisdom, guidance, and luck as befitting the examples that they had lived, both good and bad. They are spirits worthy of respect and reverence, but certainly not worship. They also could hardly be accused of being a 'tool of maintaining the status quo,' as many in the Revolution looked to their support in overthrowing the tyranny of the former empire and establishing a government of the people, whose labors form the basis of all things.
"I can't possibly be the only one in this multidimensional, interstellar society with such an example. Perhaps, darling, if you opened yourself to listening to others, you'll find less need for lecturing without such due consideration."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"You guys get a budget? I've been paying my bar tabs with the fees for credit hours from 'internships'."

Parsons: Most Ambassadorships don't get a budget. We get a tiny personal stipend for travel expenses. I pay for most of this stuff out of pocket. It's part of why the upper echelons of the civil service are so honours-friendly.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"You guys get a budget? I've been paying my bar tabs with the fees for credit hours from 'internships'."

Parsons: Most Ambassadorships don't get a budget. We get a tiny personal stipend for travel expenses. I pay for most of this stuff out of pocket. It's part of why the upper echelons of the civil service are so honours-friendly.

Steph nods politely at Parsons's words, then pipes up herself.

"Ever since Article 27 was amended to the Humane Workplace Environment Protocol, employee entertainment budgets have gotten modestly large. Long's I keep the general stash filled and don't waste too much on myself, as branch manager I have pretty broad leeway. Nobody thinks deals get done without plenty o' lubrication, here or anywhere else."

She pauses for a moment.

Then grins and says, "I feel like a boss. Hell, I am the boss!"

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: "Again", Ambassador Whatevertheheckyournameis? I am not a recidivist, I can assure you. It's just that our budget does not extend to the free provisions of alcoholic beverages, though Orange Juliuses are covered. I expect that there are plenty of nations which have paid the World Assembly to sell their drinks in the hall.

"Your diplomatic budget doesn't allow for drinks? You poor dear! My budget is allotted almost entirely for drinking -- they know me so well -- wonderful way to make friends. I'll have to open up a tab for you at the bar, darling. It would be too unkind to leave you deprived."

Neville: Neville buying a drink from Neville? Are you trying to kill us with insanity?

"Good stuff, Ambassador Nitro

Fairburn: Who is this Ambassador Nitro and why have I been replaced?

- this would close a loophole that's been too tiny to spend serious time on, but big enough to cause headaches among human rights watchers. You can take out the unnecessary definition of 'request,' especially since a recommendation is actually a different thing, and be assured of our support."

Fairburn: Don't you start waving around the dictionary!

Neville: Excuse him. This whole debate has made him a bit cranky...crankier than usual. We thank you for your support.

OOC: though I appreciate the similarity to the space debris resolutions

OOC: Finally! I was waiting for someone to point that out! Yes, that was my inspiration. As the draft still isn't finished (Ara has yet to give this proposal a vivisection), I'm inclined to keep it for now. When it comes time to submit, this semantics song-and-dance will have hopefully blown over by then.

"You guys get a budget? I've been paying my bar tabs with the fees for credit hours from 'internships'."

Parsons: Most Ambassadorships don't get a budget. We get a tiny personal stipend for travel expenses. I pay for most of this stuff out of pocket. It's part of why the upper echelons of the civil service are so honours-friendly.

Fairburn: Ambassador Bell, Lord Colonel His Grace Cyril Parsons, 1st Duke of Geneva, 1st Earl Parsons of Eastminster, 8th Viscount Parsons of Eastminster, 1st Baron Markenshire of Concilium, Knight of the Garter, Grand Cross of St Michael and St George, Privy Councillor, Member of Parliament for Those-Across-the-Seas; Proconsul Decimus; Permanent Representative to the World Assembly, if you have nothing useful to contribute, get out.

Neville: You can't actually do that.

Fairburn: What are you talking about?!

Neville: You don't own the debating chamber, ergo you don't have the authority to kick someone out.

Fairburn: This is an outrage! I'll see to it personally that this problem is resolved!

[Bananaistan]

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan sneers at all you class traitors with your budgets and alcohol. Budgets and alcohol are the imperialist tools of the capitalists and the exploiters to keep the working man down and have him pay for the privilege of lining the pockets of the multinational budget and alcohol companies," says Ted.

"Haha, come off it Ted," sniggers Eleanor, "you're some man to talk about other people lining their pockets. We have a budget. Just Comrade General Secretary specifically banned you from being let get your hands on it after that fiasco where you went to Las Vegas whilst that poor child was supposed to be in Lourdes."

"That money was only resting in my account!"

[Merni]

OOC:
If you are going to define a request as "a recommendation", then why not just use "Recommends..." in clause 6? Saves a clause, and puts an end to all this nonsense, so that we can focus on the topic at hand. (Though WA ambassadors seem to have a hard time doing that :-P)

I'm really amazed at this. So many WA/UN resolutions have "request" or similar terminology, and yet we still argue?

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC:
If you are going to define a request as "a recommendation", then why not just use "Recommends..." in clause 6?

OOC: I want to see people's reactions.

Saves a clause, and puts an end to all this nonsense, so that we can focus on the topic at hand. (Though WA ambassadors seem to have a hard time doing that :-P)

OOC: The current arrangement does put an end to this nonsense.

I'm really amazed at this. So many WA/UN resolutions have "request" or similar terminology, and yet we still argue?

OOC: Clearly, according to some people, all those previous requests were requirements. *nods*

[Phoenixcat]

I would like to announce that I am new to this game. I used to play it a while ago, but not for long.

Now, I would like to say my peace of mind here. If any nation that is so-called "pro-life" tries to recruit me to their group, don't bother. I refuse to join a group of nations that deny women of their rights and make religion their reason for denying women of their rights. I strongly believe in freedom of ALL people's rights!! Women should not have to fight for their bodies. It is really pathetic that women have to do that all the time. Women have the right to have privacy as much as men do. Women are NOT sex slaves nor are they inferior to men. Men have no right telling women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies!!

I got a telegram from a religious rightwing group. I will delete ALL telegrams from ALL the so-called "pro-life" groups. They are pro-fetus, not pro-life. So, any so-called "pro-life" groups, do not bother messaging me because I will delete your messages. I refuse to have anything to do with those that do not believe in women's rights at all.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I would like to announce that I am new to this game. I used to play it a while ago, but not for long.

Now, I would like to say my peace of mind here. If any nation that is so-called "pro-life" tries to recruit me to their group, don't bother. I refuse to join a group of nations that deny women of their rights and make religion their reason for denying women of their rights. I strongly believe in freedom of ALL people's rights!! Women should not have to fight for their bodies. It is really pathetic that women have to do that all the time. Women have the right to have privacy as much as men do. Women are NOT sex slaves nor are they inferior to men. Men have no right telling women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies!!

I got a telegram from a religious rightwing group. I will delete ALL telegrams from ALL the so-called "pro-life" groups. They are pro-fetus, not pro-life. So, any so-called "pro-life" groups, do not bother messaging me because I will delete your messages. I refuse to have anything to do with those that do not believe in women's rights at all.

This is a General Assembly forum proposal thread. It is here to critique proposals, so responses ought be germane to the question of the proposal at hand. If you would like to lodge protests with pro-life regions, doing so would probably best be done with the party which sent the telegram which you would like to protest. If it happens to be the region Right to Life, they have their regional page.

[Xyxyxyxy]

Having reviewed the backlog, a few notes:

Clause 1 notes religious belief as a belief aimed at spiritual enlightenment; what protection does this ruling provide for atheism as a religious belief. What protection does it provide to state worship based beliefs?

Clause 4 was briefly discussed as superfluous but it does remove corporations from practicing religion and declaring beliefs; while I agree, is this the point of the clause?

Clause 5 introduces a way to bypass the whole legislation simply by the government introducing legislation on basis other than religious belief discrimination, but with the specific intent to prevent an act of worship (I.e. to stop wearing burkas the government may pass strict ID laws to its heart content)

Clause 6 has interesting implication, save for being preempted by clause 5, that creating a religion which says "do what only what you want" uncovers. This clause then basically removes the religious member from the laws of the nation and firmly places them solely under the laws of the world council.

In summary: this bill is somewhat biased towards the religious, completely ineffectual, and yet it manages to teeter on the brink of promoting the "one world government"

edit:grammars x2

[Calladan]

Having reviewed the backlog, a few notes:

Clause 1 notes religious belief as a belief aimed at spiritual enlightenment; what protection does this ruling provide for atheism as a religious belief. What protection does it provide to state worship based beliefs?

While I am not a philosopher, I am an atheist, and I have no religious beliefs (except for a belief in Zorp - All Hail Zorp ) so I do not feel the need for my government to protect that belief as long as they do not force me to believe in something else. And state wide worship is protected on the same basis that a single church/synagogue/temple is protected, surely?

Clause 4 was briefly discussed as superfluous but it does remove corporations from practicing religion and declaring beliefs; while I agree, is this the point of the clause?

There is the potential for some nations to say that god (in whatever form you chose to believe in him/her/it/them) is a fiction and if you show any hint of a belief you will have your head ripped from your body and stuck on a spike. Clause 4 prevents that from happening and says you have a right believe what you want to believe, no matter how loopy or insane someone else might think it is

Clause 5 introduces a way to bypass the whole legislation simply by the government introducing legislation on basis other than religious belief discrimination, but with the specific intent to prevent an act of worship (I.e. to stop wearing burkas the government may pass strict ID laws to its heart content)

From what I understand - "extant WA legislation" means "stuff that exists as this proposal is passed into law" so the WA would not be able to make changes in the future, and the nations would not be able to ban you from wearing a burka because you are doing it for religious reasons - that's the very reason Clause 5 exists.

Clause 6 has interesting implication, save for being preempted by clause 5, that creating a religion which says "do what only what you want" uncovers. This clause then basically removes the religious member from the laws of the nation and firmly places them solely under the laws of the world council.

I can't see what you mean by this - all it does is mean that you can't hack your neighbours' heads off and say "Zorp said I had to do it" and expect it to be protected (not that Zorp would EVER say that - s/he is the god of love and kindness!).

In summary: this bill is somewhat biased towards the religious, completely ineffectual, and yet it manages to teeter on the brink of promoting the "one world government"

It's called "Freedom of Religion" - of course it is going to be biased toward promoting people of religion. And I see nothing in here that puts all the power in one place or "one world government" - it doesn't name a specific religion to which this applies, nor does it name an authority that (the "extant WA legislation" part notwithstanding) has any say in any of this.

To me this defends religions of all types, and defends the rights of people such as me who do not hold any religious beliefs (because they think it is all a crock made up by people who had too much time on their hands). And it does it without intruding onto national sovereignty (or overly intruding anyway) and without intruding into the more...... interesting rituals of some of the more obscure religions, except where those rituals would interfere with the lives of others.

[Merni]

[...]
In summary: this bill is somewhat biased towards the religious, completely ineffectual, and yet it manages to teeter on the brink of promoting the "one world government"

edit:grammars x2

Welcome to the Festering Snakepit, also called the General Assembly!

first two: see Calladan above.

Promoting "one world government": No. This just gives citizens rights and imposes restriction on the member-states so as not to infringe on the basic right to practice religion.

All (or most) GA laws impose certain rules or restrictions on member-states; otherwise what would resolutions do? Anyway compliance is voluntary, if you leave the WA you need not comply with its legislation. Besides, as per the rules, NatSov cannot be used as a sole argument against a resolution (since all proposals can be struck down on that basis)

[Xyxyxyxy]

Now that I think of it you're right with regards to state religions simply being religions. I do disagree that clause 1 includes non-regions beliefs but I do see it as an exception at clause 8 further down, I must have been looking at the wrong draft regarding this.

My comment on clause 4 was with regards to the use of "sapient" only; I do happen to agree with the wording.

For clause 5 I'm pointing out that the way it is phrased it does not protect against passing laws that would infringe on religious views if they are passed for another reason. Depending on how effective this resolution is to be this may be sufficient.

My favorite one is clause 6 (and on second look I see it's only "request" level) it's interesting because as it is worded it is most exploitable. To contrast most resolutions I assume would have the end result of:

law = world assembly law + (national law - specific exceptions in word assembly law)

whereas I still find that as since clause 6 does not strictly define the scope of "basic religious rights" other than "whatever your religion says" it introduces the ability of citizens to "pick your own set of national laws to obey" mechanic which results:

law = world assembly law + (national law - (specific clauses in world assembly law + religious exceptions defined externally))

if a religion says all laws of the land are null and void, then in this case only WA law remains effect.

Just to reiterate my point is not that the resolution overrides specific laws of the land (violation of natsov and that whole concersation) but instead it allows for individuals to claim any exception to all the rules of the land.

I do realize my comments on 5 and 6 are opposite sides of the argument as well.

[Merni]

Clause 5 is a requirement, Clause 6 is a request.
By Clause 5, criminalising religious rituals includes not only laws with that main purpose, but any legislation that criminalises religious rituals (even if the purpose is different).

If a religion says all laws of the land are null and void, then in this case only WA law remains effect.
Just to reiterate my point is not that the resolution overrides specific laws of the land (violation of natsov and that whole concersation) but instead it allows for individuals to claim any exception to all the rules of the land.

If someone does something following a religious belief, it is a religious ritual. If the something is illegal, then it is covered by the last bit of Clause 5

[...]unless they contradict extant WA legislation or would otherwise be illegal under domestic law were they not performed for religious reasons,

[Xyxyxyxy]

Fair enough 6 being a request; seems to me 5 is still both for and against itself, but I'll give it a rest for now.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

This is a General Assembly forum proposal thread. It is here to critique proposals, so responses ought be germane to the question of the proposal at hand.

As Second Secretary to Pro Life International, I thank you for reminding everyone to keep to the topic at hand.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: We've made some slight wording changes to Clauses Five and Six. Please keep your suggestions coming.

[Merni]

Do we even need Clause 7, since Clause 6 is a request? Is it necessary to give exceptions to a request? Just my 2p.