[DEFEATED] Freedom of Religion

[Draconae]

[quote="Draconae";p="30082383]

OOC: Also, you have some spelling mistakes in those clauses. "criminalising" should be "criminalizing" and "organisations" should be "organizations.[/quote]

OOC: Glory is a Brit (having mentioned being in the UK), so those are proper spellings for him and us Yanks should probably just be grateful that he's not jamming unnecessary "u"s after every "o," or putting all his "r"s before his "e"s. [/quote]

OOC: Thanks. I knew that u's and e's were a British spelling, but I didn't know those were. I was wrong and I apologize for that.

Edit: Quote problems.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Glory is a Brit (having mentioned being in the UK), so those are proper spellings for him and us Yanks should probably just be grateful that he's not jamming unnecessary "u"s after every "o," or putting all his "r"s before his "e"s.

This grievance comes from pernickety people who have leapt into attack without checking the FAQs … and without even the remotest realisation that British and American words are sometimes spelt differently. They should have travelled more! We've been at the centre of some sulphurous rancour, but we're not going to take offence or harbour any grievances. The catalogue of their ill-informed certainties won't colour this organisation's programme. It's a grey area anyway. And we don't want to labour the point. Except to add that most of these cavillous correspondents seem to feel that they have a licence or a blank cheque for a level of rudeness that more civilised souls wouldn't have dreamt of. In response, we nevertheless practise polite dialogue, enabling them to recognise that the error is entirely their own. (We manoeuvre them towards the Oxford English Reference Dictionary, which is also an encyclopaedia.) This leaves them quite defenceless, which may account for the fact that these less than honourable individuals virtually never apologise.

OOC: 'Murican English is Best English, ya damn limeys. Speak reg'ler, dammit!

[States of Glory WA Office]

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

*snip*

6. 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:

"I believe that it would be more concise to just use 'Recommends' as the operative word for Clause 6, especially given how long this resolution appears to be. The resolution would have the same effect, so I don't believe there is any reason not to combine the two clauses. Perhaps you can enlighten me."

Neville and Fairburn: Make Legislation Funny Again!

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 performed for non-religious reasons,

6. 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:

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


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

"I don't see why Clause 7 is necessary. Since member nations cannot refrain from criminalizing religious rituals if they contradict extant WA legislation anyway, is there any point in pointing out that Clause 6 does not apply? As an alternative, if it is necessary, couldn't it be placed in Clause 6, like this?"

Neville: Indeed, member states do have to criminalise rituals that contradict extant WA legislation, but there were some concerns that the proposal, at one point, allowed member states to legalise rituals that contradict WA legislation, so I added the words 'under domestic law' and Clause Seven. However, I will merge the two.

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

"In fact, Draconae supports Clause 11, despite being a relatively religious nation. In fact, we would like to suggest that it be worded something like this:"

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

"This way, Clause Eleven supports your goal of not taking a position on whether beliefs are valid, but also expands it to unbelief or religion as a whole."

Neville: Thanks, I'll try it out.

OOC: 'Murican English is Best English, ya damn limeys. Speak reg'ler, dammit!

OOC: Hey, at least we Brits get to laugh at people with the name 'Fanny'.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Long since promised, now squeezed in right before my self-set deadline, here's my proposal vivisection. For the purposes of this post, imagine the Proposal Scalpel being wielded by a long, thin, prehensile vine.

A large potted plant in a big plantpot with wheels suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"We were asked to provide an analysis on this proposal, and have decided to do so. We apologize it has taken us this long to do so."

Freedom of Religion

"While we understand the constraints of the title length, this reads as giving religions the freedom to do as they wish, rather than creating a universal right to hold whatever religious beliefs the individuals wish."

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,

"It is only a right if the nation in question recognizes it as a right. You may claim that everyone having their own planet is a right, yet that doesn't make it a universal right. Perhaps you should tighten this along the lines of "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;". That would acknowledge that it is not necessarily the government that via laws is forcing individuals to suppress their religious beliefs, but that it may also be the majority culture or religion in that member state. If you believe something is a universal right, you must also acknowledge that right for those who do not think the way you do."

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

"You may wish to add a short qualifier to that, maybe something like "such as the health and safety of others" to show that you are willing to recognize individual rights as long as they do not violate the rights of others."

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,

"Is belief an ideology? Also, in our understanding, not all religions aim for spiritual enlightenment, some just require you to live by certain rules while you are alive. Perhaps the definition should have the addition "belief in an ideology". Because there is a difference between belief - which is essentially a feeling - and religion, which is what would dictate the behaviours, practices and morals.

So, are you attempting to define belief or religion?"

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,

"Again, religion, not necessarily belief. An individual can believe whatever they want, yet belong to a religion as long as they follow the code of conduct that their religion demands of them."

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

"We suggest you drop this one to avoid appearing overtly pedantic in the eyes of the possible voters, should this proposal manage to get that far. You may also wish to use a different word in place of "requests" to avoid the argument entirely."

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

"Would the addition of "regardless of whether it conforms to the beliefs of others" be out of the question? That is, assuming that you are holding the right to believe as they wish to be an universal right, while willing to restrict religions, rituals and code of conduct, where they might encroach on the rights of others or the laws of WA or the nation in question."

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,

"Re-wording this as "...to refrain from criminalising religious rituals and practices that do not otherwise break the laws of the member nation or the World Assembly" might make it more clear, at least in our opinion."

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:

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

"Why? You would be creating licence for religions to break the local laws as they wish. Why would you want for the WA to do that? We feel this would be putting religious and non-religious people into different, arbitrary categories when it comes to the lawful obedience, and that would be against existing WA laws."

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

"This should come after the declaration for the universal right to religious belief, or - as would be more appropriate - be included in it."

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,

"Again, this could conceivably allow individuals to break national laws simply because they belong to a certain religion. And that is also discrimination."

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,

"This is the only part of this proposal that speaks of faiths. We would suggest that you stick to terminology used elsewhere in the proposal. Otherwise you run into the chance of confusion and arguments over this single clause."

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.

"We are fairly sure that "religious unbelief" is not exact enough terminology to be used in a resolution. Would "validity of religious beliefs or the lack thereof" work for you?

All in all, we feel that this proposal has potential, but currently it is all too skewed on the side of the religions and their adherents, discriminating against those who perhaps have no religious beliefs or at the very least do not belong into a religion. We hope the author will continue to work on it."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Freedom of Religion

"While we understand the constraints of the title length, this reads as giving religions the freedom to do as they wish, rather than creating a universal right to hold whatever religious beliefs the individuals wish."

Neville: Personally, I think that the title is unambiguous, neutral and straightforward. Perhaps you have a suggestion for a better alternative?

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,

"It is only a right if the nation in question recognizes it as a right. You may claim that everyone having their own planet is a right, yet that doesn't make it a universal right. Perhaps you should tighten this along the lines of "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;". That would acknowledge that it is not necessarily the government that via laws is forcing individuals to suppress their religious beliefs, but that it may also be the majority culture or religion in that member state. If you believe something is a universal right, you must also acknowledge that right for those who do not think the way you do."

Neville: I added the word 'should' for a reason, but if you think that it'll tighten the proposal, I'm all for it.

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

"You may wish to add a short qualifier to that, maybe something like "such as the health and safety of others" to show that you are willing to recognize individual rights as long as they do not violate the rights of others."

Neville: Eh. It's a preambulatory clause so I'm not too bothered. Still, the addition is harmless.

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,

"Is belief an ideology?

Neville: I don't see how you could argue that a belief isn't ideological.

Also, in our understanding, not all religions aim for spiritual enlightenment, some just require you to live by certain rules while you are alive. Perhaps the definition should have the addition "belief in an ideology". Because there is a difference between belief - which is essentially a feeling - and religion, which is what would dictate the behaviours, practices and morals.

Neville: I'd argue that if it doesn't aim for spiritual enlightenment, it counts as a philosophy. In addition to that, I'm not defining a belief as a belief. Redundant definitions are too redundant and I want this non-redundant proposal to refrain from being redundant.

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,

"Again, religion, not necessarily belief. An individual can believe whatever they want, yet belong to a religion as long as they follow the code of conduct that their religion demands of them."

Neville: If they have no conviction in what they do, why should the World Assembly protect their right to do it?

"We suggest you drop this one to avoid appearing overtly pedantic in the eyes of the possible voters, should this proposal manage to get that far. You may also wish to use a different word in place of "requests" to avoid the argument entirely."

Neville and Fairburn: Make Legislation Funny Again!

"Would the addition of "regardless of whether it conforms to the beliefs of others" be out of the question? That is, assuming that you are holding the right to believe as they wish to be an universal right, while willing to restrict religions, rituals and code of conduct, where they might encroach on the rights of others or the laws of WA or the nation in question."

Fairburn: What are you even saying? Speak properly!

"Re-wording this as "...to refrain from criminalising religious rituals and practices that do not otherwise break the laws of the member nation or the World Assembly" might make it more clear, at least in our opinion."

Neville: Thanks. I'll try it out.

"Why? You would be creating licence for religions to break the local laws as they wish. Why would you want for the WA to do that? We feel this would be putting religious and non-religious people into different, arbitrary categories when it comes to the lawful obedience, and that would be against existing WA laws."

Neville: If the ritual is completely harmless, why outlaw it?

Fairburn: Also, IT'S A BLEEDING REQUEST!!! I love it when people criticise Clause Three, only to demonstrate why Clause Three is needed!

OOC: You are aware that this is the RL status quo, right? Many nations, even secular ones, make exceptions for religious individuals. The nations that don't either follow the French secularism system or mandate state atheism.

"This should come after the declaration for the universal right to religious belief, or - as would be more appropriate - be included in it."

OOC: Moving this around is going to be a chore, but I'll try.

"Again, this could conceivably allow individuals to break national laws simply because they belong to a certain religion. And that is also discrimination."

Neville: Let's say that someone follows a religion which states that only their god is to be worshipped. However, they live in a nation where the worship of the nation's leader is compulsory. Should they be forced to comply? I'm willing to negotiate, but I am not going to allow leaders to shove cults of personality down people's throats.

"This is the only part of this proposal that speaks of faiths. We would suggest that you stick to terminology used elsewhere in the proposal. Otherwise you run into the chance of confusion and arguments over this single clause."

Neville: I'll see what I can do.

"We are fairly sure that "religious unbelief" is not exact enough terminology to be used in a resolution. Would "validity of religious beliefs or the lack thereof" work for you?

Neville: It works for me.

All in all, we feel that this proposal has potential, but currently it is all too skewed on the side of the religions and their adherents, discriminating against those who perhaps have no religious beliefs or at the very least do not belong into a religion. We hope the author will continue to work on it."

Neville: We disagree. The only effect this proposal has on atheists and agnostics is that it guarantees them the right not to hold a religious belief. Thanks for your comments, though. They were far more constructive than those made by certain other delegations.

Fairburn: Also, you guys are weird. Even weirder than the talking car.

[Excidium Planetis]

I must recommend you acquire a thesaurus and spend some time reading it.

Barbera: Ambassador Blackbourne, I must ask: by 'recommend', do you mean 'require', 'request', 'demand' or 'beg'?

"That would be up to the interpretation of the individual member nations, Ma'am." Blackbourne says. "So I suppose you could say the answer is 'any of the above'."

Fairburn: Also, you guys are weird. Even weirder than the talking car.

"By the way, Missus Barbera, you might want to inform your Ambassador that the plant he is addressing as weird is one of the few organisms in this building known to have actually killed a sapient being in the WA HQ. Unlike Delegate Schultz, who only threatens sapient beings."

[Araraukar]

"By the way, Missus Barbera, you might want to inform your Ambassador that the plant he is addressing as weird is one of the few organisms in this building known to have actually killed a sapient being in the WA HQ. Unlike Delegate Schultz, who only threatens sapient beings."

OOC: I thought Wallenburg had that murder mystery thing about someone getting murdered in their WAHQ office? Haven't caught up with the Bar thread yet, so not sure how that's turned out, but last I read, it was confirmed a murder.

[Excidium Planetis]

"By the way, Missus Barbera, you might want to inform your Ambassador that the plant he is addressing as weird is one of the few organisms in this building known to have actually killed a sapient being in the WA HQ. Unlike Delegate Schultz, who only threatens sapient beings."

OOC: I thought Wallenburg had that murder mystery thing about someone getting murdered in their WAHQ office? Haven't caught up with the Bar thread yet, so not sure how that's turned out, but last I read, it was confirmed a murder.

OOC: I said "one of the few", not "the only".

[States of Glory WA Office]

Barbera: Ambassador Blackbourne, I must ask: by 'recommend', do you mean 'require', 'request', 'demand' or 'beg'?

"That would be up to the interpretation of the individual member nations, Ma'am." Blackbourne says. "So I suppose you could say the answer is 'any of the above'."

Barbera: Ah, I see. Why, then, does this principle not apply to the proposal?

Fairburn: Also, you guys are weird. Even weirder than the talking car.

"By the way, Missus Barbera, you might want to inform your Ambassador that the plant he is addressing as weird is one of the few organisms in this building known to have actually killed a sapient being in the WA HQ. Unlike Delegate Schultz, who only threatens sapient beings."

Barbera: If I may ask, how can it kill anyone? Doesn't WAHQ have a Weapons Nullifier?

[Excidium Planetis]

"That would be up to the interpretation of the individual member nations, Ma'am." Blackbourne says. "So I suppose you could say the answer is 'any of the above'."

Barbera: Ah, I see. Why, then, does this principle not apply to the proposal?

"It does. The interpretation of 'requests' is up to the individual member nations, therefore member nations may interpret it as 'demands'. Your delegation insists otherwise."

Barbera: If I may ask, how can it kill anyone? Doesn't WAHQ have a Weapons Nullifier?

"Weapons Nullifiers do not always work, especially not in the offices."

[Draconae]

"I believe that it would be more concise to just use 'Recommends' as the operative word for Clause 6, especially given how long this resolution appears to be. The resolution would have the same effect, so I don't believe there is any reason not to combine the two clauses. Perhaps you can enlighten me."

Neville and Fairburn: Make Legislation Funny Again!

"While I sympathize with making legislation funny again and quite enjoyed the repeal of Law Enforcement Education, I do not see how a redundant definition is funny. Perhaps you can explain a bit more?

"I don't see why Clause 7 is necessary. Since member nations cannot refrain from criminalizing religious rituals if they contradict extant WA legislation anyway, is there any point in pointing out that Clause 6 does not apply? As an alternative, if it is necessary, couldn't it be placed in Clause 6, like this?"

Neville: Indeed, member states do have to criminalise rituals that contradict extant WA legislation, but there were some concerns that the proposal, at one point, allowed member states to legalise rituals that contradict WA legislation, so I added the words 'under domestic law' and Clause Seven. However, I will merge the two.

"In fact, Draconae supports Clause 11, despite being a relatively religious nation. In fact, we would like to suggest that it be worded something like this:"



"This way, Clause Eleven supports your goal of not taking a position on whether beliefs are valid, but also expands it to unbelief or religion as a whole."

Neville: Thanks, I'll try it out.

"Great, thank you. If we come up with anything else, we'll let you know."

Edit: Add quotes.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Barbera: Ah, I see. Why, then, does this principle not apply to the proposal?

"It does. The interpretation of 'requests' is up to the individual member nations, therefore member nations may interpret it as 'demands'. Your delegation insists otherwise."

Barbera: That was a test, Ambassador Blackbourne. I'll tell you why it does not apply. Clause Three. You failed to define a recommendation, which is not an error which we'd expect someone of your intelligence to make.

Neville and Fairburn: Make Legislation Funny Again!

"While I sympathize with making legislation funny again and quite enjoyed the repeal of Law Enforcement Education, I do not see how a redundant definition is funny. Perhaps you can explain a bit more?

Fairburn: It's a middle finger to those who insist that a request is the same as a requirement.

[Draconae]

"While I sympathize with making legislation funny again and quite enjoyed the repeal of Law Enforcement Education, I do not see how a redundant definition is funny. Perhaps you can explain a bit more?

Fairburn: It's a middle finger to those who insist that a request is the same as a requirement.

"Okay then."

[Excidium Planetis]

"It does. The interpretation of 'requests' is up to the individual member nations, therefore member nations may interpret it as 'demands'. Your delegation insists otherwise."

Barbera: That was a test, Ambassador Blackbourne. I'll tell you why it does not apply. Clause Three. You failed to define a recommendation, which is not an error which we'd expect someone of your intelligence to make.

"I do not need to define 'a recommendation'. None of the clauses, save Clause 3, use the term."

[The Most Glorious God]

A booming voice comes down from the heavens as omnipotence rips off the ceiling of the chamber and light spills in corpuscular rays from the aether above. 'It would be a great disservice to billions of souls to lead them astray from their salvation and towards eternal damnation. Those who seek redemption must not be led from the path of righteousness.'

An omnipotent force conjures itself into the side of the delegation from the States of Glory and pushes them out of the window into the reflecting pool below. A choir of angels sings as an Archangel Michael's sword impacts their desk, cracking it in two and releasing a blinding pulse of light.

[The Sheika]

A booming voice comes down from the heavens as omnipotence rips off the ceiling of the chamber and light spills in corpuscular rays from the aether above. 'It would be a great disservice to billions of souls to lead them astray from their salvation and towards eternal damnation. Those who seek redemption must not be led from the path of righteousness.'

An omnipotent force conjures itself into the side of the delegation from the States of Glory and pushes them out of the window into the reflecting pool below. A choir of angels sings as an Archangel Michael's sword impacts their desk, cracking it in two and releasing a blinding pulse of light.

"Hmm, a light show. Well, back to the discussion..."

[Tahkranul]

A booming voice comes down from the heavens as omnipotence rips off the ceiling of the chamber and light spills in corpuscular rays from the aether above. 'It would be a great disservice to billions of souls to lead them astray from their salvation and towards eternal damnation. Those who seek redemption must not be led from the path of righteousness.'

An omnipotent force conjures itself into the side of the delegation from the States of Glory and pushes them out of the window into the reflecting pool below. A choir of angels sings as an Archangel Michael's sword impacts their desk, cracking it in two and releasing a blinding pulse of light.

Este sits bolt upright in momentary surprise at first, but as soon as the bombing voice starts to drone on, she drums her fingers on her desk and sighs, obviously bored. She actually rolls her eyes at the later attempts to incur awe.
"That's nice, dear. Very impressive, I'm sure. However did you manage the special effects? Psychic visions like the Nobles back home? Advanced spacefaring technology? Oh, of course, Excidium Planetis, it's bad enough that you continually disrupted these precedings with your substandard education claiming that 'requests' and 'demands' meant the same thing for the first time in the history of this Assembly, must you put on such petulant displays? The antics of your delegation are doing nothing to make legislation funny, but tedious, frustrating, and annoying. If you insist on continuing to derail these proceedings and prevent any work from getting done, I shall be forced to issue an official nuisance complaint with WA Security."

[The Lord Your God]

A booming voice comes down from the heavens as omnipotence rips off the ceiling of the chamber and light spills in corpuscular rays from the aether above. 'It would be a great disservice to billions of souls to lead them astray from their salvation and towards eternal damnation. Those who seek redemption must not be led from the path of righteousness.'

An omnipotent force conjures itself into the side of the delegation from the States of Glory and pushes them out of the window into the reflecting pool below. A choir of angels sings as an Archangel Michael's sword impacts their desk, cracking it in two and releasing a blinding pulse of light.

"Oh, for My sake! Won't you cut out the cheap tricks for once? Nobody's interested in your absolutist cosmology and it just makes you look desperate for attention pretending otherwise! Act as though you've been an eternal being before, you bloody neophyte! Jesus bloody Christ... once they get a little taste of divinity, suddenly it's all 'I am that I am' this, and 'Thou shalt not' that. It's the devil's own job keeping these godlings from opening the seventh seal on a lark, just to prove they can. Frankly, I'm bloody sick of it. What we need's a good old-fashioned governess! But can Mrs. God bring herself to stop doting on the little wretches? OH, no, that's a bridge too bloody far! Hard enough keeping the blasted mortals alive without divine miracles driving them mad with zeal all the bloody time, but are we going to put our foot down and stop them happening? No, We are not! But I tell you I will draw the line at that damned sword being used like you're... like you're picking your bloody teeth! So come off it, clean up after yourself, and hope I don't turn you into a pillar of salt! You'll go to your bloody bedrealm without supper, see if you don't!"

"And everyone bloody knows there's no such thing as aether!"

[Excidium Planetis]

"That's nice, dear. Very impressive, I'm sure. However did you manage the special effects? Psychic visions like the Nobles back home? Advanced spacefaring technology? Oh, of course, Excidium Planetis, it's bad enough that you continually disrupted these precedings with your substandard education claiming that 'requests' and 'demands' meant the same thing for the first time in the history of this Assembly, must you put on such petulant displays? The antics of your delegation are doing nothing to make legislation funny, but tedious, frustrating, and annoying. If you insist on continuing to derail these proceedings and prevent any work from getting done, I shall be forced to issue an official nuisance complaint with WA Security."

Blackbourne, who is quite frankly very confused about the proceedings, shakily replies:

"Actually, Madam, this is far above our technological capabilities. I believe the nation of Bears Armed has done something like this before, and certainly Excidium Planetis has encountered beings that could... er... be described as gods or demigods by the superstitious individual, which this quite possibly is, but this is certainly not our doing."

[Tinfect]

"That's nice, dear. Very impressive, I'm sure. However did you manage the special effects? Psychic visions like the Nobles back home? Advanced spacefaring technology? Oh, of course, Excidium Planetis, it's bad enough that you continually disrupted these precedings with your substandard education claiming that 'requests' and 'demands' meant the same thing for the first time in the history of this Assembly, must you put on such petulant displays? The antics of your delegation are doing nothing to make legislation funny, but tedious, frustrating, and annoying. If you insist on continuing to derail these proceedings and prevent any work from getting done, I shall be forced to issue an official nuisance complaint with WA Security."

"Actually, Madam, this is far above our technological capabilities. I believe the nation of Bears Armed has done something like this before, and certainly Excidium Planetis has encountered beings that could... er... be described as gods or demigods by the superstitious individual, which this quite possibly is, but this is certainly not our doing."

"The Archailects, Ambassador, or, rather, a similarly advanced civilization. While they themselves do not fashion themselves as Gods, nor do they allow lesser civilizations to view them as such, any Civilization of even sufficiently similar advancement would be easily capable of such. Projection of a contained particle field in such a manner as to produce images is a simple enough feat that the Imperium is capable of it, in a limited capacity, and the Archailects are known to be capable of highly advanced methods of energy-projection, and stealth technologies. It is hardly beyond reason that comparable, and less ethical, civilizations would be capable and willing to utilize such technologies so as to position themselves as a divine-entity to lesser civilizations."

[States of Glory WA Office]

An omnipotent force conjures itself into the side of the delegation from the States of Glory and pushes them out of the window into the reflecting pool below. A choir of angels sings as an Archangel Michael's sword impacts their desk, cracking it in two and releasing a blinding pulse of light.

OOC: Yeah, no. Don't think for a minute that I'll acknowledge this IC, whoever you are.

[Cogoria]

The book says there is no god...... Cogoria declares war on god! The manifesto cannot be allowed to be wrong!!!!

[States of Glory WA Office]

The book says there is no god...... Cogoria declares war on god! The manifesto cannot be allowed to be wrong!!!!

Fairburn: Good luck with that. How many Cogorians have died of old age?

Neville: Also, why declare war on something which you don't believe even exists?

[Cogoria]

......... To ensure it remains non existent... .... And dying of old age is over rated, why my nephew died last week bayonet charging a battleship, we're all very proud of him.

[Potted Plants United]

Neville: Personally, I think that the title is unambiguous, neutral and straightforward. Perhaps you have a suggestion for a better alternative?

A large potted plant in a big plantpot with wheels suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"How would you feel about simply switching the words around and make it "Religious Freedoms", or possibly "Religious Rights"? We admit that is not an ideal solution either, but at least it emphasizes the freedoms - or rights - of the individuals, rather than those of religions."

Neville: I don't see how you could argue that a belief isn't ideological.
*snip*
Neville: I'd argue that if it doesn't aim for spiritual enlightenment, it counts as a philosophy. In addition to that, I'm not defining a belief as a belief. Redundant definitions are too redundant and I want this non-redundant proposal to refrain from being redundant.

"The same way you yourself disqualify a religion that does not conform to your own "belief" of what counts as a religion, despite not defining a religion in the proposal. Either all philosophies - or ideologies, including political ones - count as religions as per your definition of "religious belief", or religions that do not aim for spiritual enlightenment should also count as religions. Many sapients follow certain political ideologies with the surety that should all espouse their ideology, the world would be a better place with "enlightened people". Would that make it a religion for you?"

Neville: If they have no conviction in what they do, why should the World Assembly protect their right to do it?

OOC: I hate dropping into OOC in middle of a PPU post, but I'm going to have to use Finland as an example, because ours is the only culture I know well enough. The majority of Finns (73% as of year 2015) belong into the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, but only about 2% of them attend church services weekly. The average number of church visits per year of all church members is approximately two, which means that most church members don't go there at all (except for things like baptisms, confirmations, weddings and funerals). Only about a third of all Finns believe in a god. Unlike places like USA, religious holidays are free days for all, nevermind their religion or the lack of it. Religious education is mandatory in schools, and the vast majority of students, irrespective of their religion, attend the Lutheran religious education.

I'm an atheist and yet I belong to the church. Why? Tradition. The same holds true for most Lutherans in Finland. By your argument, most of us wouldn't be allowed to use religion as an excuse to do or not do something, because we're not "true believers". Unless people belonging to a religion tell you otherwise, how are you going to know if they have conviction or not?

Neville and Fairburn: Make Legislation Funny Again!

"We find nothing funny in pedantic dictionary wars."

Fairburn: What are you even saying? Speak properly!

"We were not talking to you, but rather to your more intelligent proposal writer."

Neville: If the ritual is completely harmless, why outlaw it?

"Perhaps we did not communicate our thoughts well enough: your clause 7 is repetitious of clause 6, or vice versa. You do not need both. And examples of why clause 7 might not be good, include laws against hate speech or libel or encouraging others to violence. And please do not say "no real religion" would do that."

Fairburn: Also, IT'S A BLEEDING REQUEST!!! I love it when people criticise Clause Three, only to demonstrate why Clause Three is needed!

"And you continue to demonstrate why sapients do not want to talk with you."

Neville: Let's say that someone follows a religion which states that only their god is to be worshipped. However, they live in a nation where the worship of the nation's leader is compulsory. Should they be forced to comply? I'm willing to negotiate, but I am not going to allow leaders to shove cults of personality down people's throats.

"What is a belief to a single supernatural entity but a "cult of personality"? Or is a religion not a cult only if the creature you want to deify cannot be seen and can thus only be belived in? We are fairly sure that there are various nations around here that have actual and factual gods. Just because you do not believe that their god is a god, does not make it any less a god."

Neville: We disagree. The only effect this proposal has on atheists and agnostics is that it guarantees them the right not to hold a religious belief.

"And then gives extra freedoms to those that belong into what you see as a "real enough" religion. How is that not discrimination?"

Fairburn: Also, you guys are weird. Even weirder than the talking car.

"This is the first truth you have uttered so far."

---

"By the way, Missus Barbera, you might want to inform your Ambassador that the plant he is addressing as weird is one of the few organisms in this building known to have actually killed a sapient being in the WA HQ. Unlike Delegate Schultz, who only threatens sapient beings."

A visible change happens in the speaker plant; its mobility vines, which normally push it along the floor, rise up to its sides, coiling up, and all the leaves that normally lie against its trunk, fluff out, so that the pitcher it uses as a lung, becomes visible. Its voice also becomes more like that of a human, losing a lot of the usual hiss.¹

"Ambassador Blackbourne, perhaps Madame Schultz has failed to inform you of my origins, but the only sapient death that can be blamed on any of my individual plants, was done by my non-sapient predecessor, and was most likely the event that bootstrapped the development into full sapience. I have no memory of it and blaming me for that action would be akin to blaming you for whatever your nonsapient ancestors did."

Barbera: If I may ask, how can it kill anyone? Doesn't WAHQ have a Weapons Nullifier?

The plant loses none of its intensity, but its voice is kinder as it replies:

"Madame Barbera, the Weapons Nullifiers are not in effect in the individual nations' offices, unless that nation has authorized their use there. The former Araraukarian office, where my predecessor's lethal action took place, did not have them, nor do the rooms, which now serve as my headquarters, now have them in effect, to let me defend my soil. That space is now literally Potted Plants United soil. If you wish to visit me some day, I will be happy to show you. And as long as you enter without any weapons or intentions to harm my individual plants, I am more than happy to guarantee your safety."

The speaker plant subsides into its usual form and goes silent.

---

¹OOC: In case it's unclear, the transformation means the hivemind fully concentrating (or as fully as a hivemind that's consciously doing a million things at once can concentrate on any single one of those actions) on the conversation, hence the change in personal pronoun.

Also, who's missus Barbera?