[DEFEATED] Freedom of Religion

[The 24th Division]

I cannot vote for a resolution which refers back to the preamble as a part of the legislation. Preambles are explanations of laws, not legally binding parts of them. Put everything intended to be a part of the law in the main body of the law.

[NovoUnitopius]

I voted for this, on the understanding that while the resolution requests that I do not criminalise religion, it also does not require the state to fund religions. They can pay for their own religious beliefs, in NovoUnitopius. In my country, even though we were founded without a spiritual principle, the government has tried to maintain a careful neutrality where spirituality and religion are concerned with a policy that states that the only time there will be any government interference with any religion is if that religion is engaged in criminal actions which would be defined as criminal aside from the religious beliefs. If a specific sect of a religion is bombing buildings or stabbing citizens, then we will take the hit to my nation's reputation in the WA and curtail some civil rights, in order to monitor their communications to protect the people of NovoUnitopius and keep crime almost totally unknown. That isn't because any citizen is practicing a religion, that is because some citizens are choosing to engage in criminal acts which threaten public safety.

Assuming this policy is at least somewhat close to what the proposed legislation is asking, then my vote remains 'For' the proposal.

[Master Republic]

It appears this may well come to vote tomorrow. Uan aa Boa stands strongly opposed. Clause 8 seeks to make some actions that would be illegal if performed by a person of no religion legal if performed by a member of a religious group. Equality before the law irrespective of religion is a fundamental principle and not to be lightly cast aside.

Although I value religious freedom, this statement compels me to vote no.

[Master Republic]

Clause 6 and 8 are both mandatory and non-mandatory respectively. It is conflicting itself. Can that be rectified?

[Bears Armed Mission]

"We would prefer it if Clause 8 was mandatory, so that laws about matters which are primarily of concern to the members of specific religions could not be used as a covert form of pressure against those religions, but have voted for this proposed resolution anyhows."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Osirisa]

In addition to this resolution's incredible vagueness and contradictory clauses, to attempt to dictate the legality of religious beliefs on this scale is completely immoral as well as nearly impossible to enforce. Religious beliefs are matters of opinion and faith and should not be subject to the law except in cases where those beliefs would do harm to other persons. Noting that the religion or religions of each member nation differs as much as their respective flags the laws governing those religions should be decided solely on national level. As such the Osirisan Delegation to the World Assembly will vote against this resolution.

[Bitely]

It appears this may well come to vote tomorrow. Uan aa Boa stands strongly opposed. Clause 8 seeks to make some actions that would be illegal if performed by a person of no religion legal if performed by a member of a religious group. Equality before the law irrespective of religion is a fundamental principle and not to be lightly cast aside.

Also all those clauses clarifying that clause 8 isn't mandatory is pretty annoying at best.

[Frickthepolice]

This should not pass.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I'm not seeing any clause that either enforces or prohibits secularism. It must be one of these magic invisible clauses. Congratulations to SOG for slipping one in.

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

OOC: Unless, of course, that can be read as "national laws banning all religious rituals in public will still ban religious rituals in public". In which case this proposal doesn't actually do anything. But I'm not getting into this debate further.

OOC: Why on Earth would a secular state criminalise a religious ritual that isn't otherwise illegal? Secularism =/= state atheism.

Voted against.

Fairburn: Of course you did.

I voted against. I don't like being treated by the author like I'm a four year old who can't read.

Fairburn: There has been actual confusion about whether Clause Eight is mandatory throughout the process of drafting. You are free to read the transcripts of the debate if you do not believe me. The optionality of Clause Eight is worth clarifying.

We would've voted for if clause #8 would've been mandatory. Now it means absolutely nothing, and as such, we've voted against this nonsense.

Fairburn: You say that as if it was ever mandatory. Here is Clause Eight as seen in the very first draft:

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,

Well, what do you know? It was a request from the very beginning! You had months to state this objection and you only just now bring it up? Oh, by the way, there's this proposal called World Space Administration that's at vote right now. I think we should do something about it before it passes.

-snip-

OOC: There was really no need to quote my monster of an OP.

Clause 6 and 8 are both mandatory and non-mandatory respectively. It is conflicting itself. Can that be rectified?

Fairburn: Because God forbid...

Harold: Heh heh heh.

Fairburn: ...that proposals have mandatory and non-mandatory clauses! We've got a lot of resolutions to repeal, Neville; we better get started!

We would prefer it if Clause 8 was mandatory

Fairburn: Suicide is not in our Delegation's best interests.

Neville: (under his breath) Not that it made a difference anyway...

contradictory clauses

OOC: Self-contradiction has been ruled illegal in the past. If you genuinely believe that this proposal is self-contradictory then file a Legality Challenge.

This should not pass.

Neville: Hello, Gandalf.

[Imperial Polk County]

I voted against. I don't like being treated by the author like I'm a four year old who can't read.

Fairburn: There has been actual confusion about whether Clause Eight is mandatory throughout the process of drafting. You are free to read the transcripts of the debate if you do not believe me. The optionality of Clause Eight is worth clarifying.

Maybe, instead of passive-aggressively adding repetitive belittling clauses, you could have reworded the clause to make it a tad clearer. Perhaps then you wouldn't get so many negative votes on something that on the surface really does seem like such a great idea. Not trying to insult you, just saying that maybe next time give the majority of us a little more credit instead of making it seem like we're all illiterate stooges.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: There has been actual confusion about whether Clause Eight is mandatory throughout the process of drafting. You are free to read the transcripts of the debate if you do not believe me. The optionality of Clause Eight is worth clarifying.

Maybe, instead of passive-aggressively adding repetitive belittling clauses, you could have reworded the clause to make it a tad clearer.

Fairburn: I did make it clearer, though. Were you in any doubt that Clause Eight was a request? Would you rather I make it ambiguous?

[Auralia]

Maybe, instead of passive-aggressively adding repetitive belittling clauses, you could have reworded the clause to make it a tad clearer.

Fairburn: I did make it clearer, though. Were you in any doubt that Clause Eight was a request? Would you rather I make it ambiguous?

It's redundant and unprofessional to intentionally include several clauses that say the same thing as a joke.

And incidentally, I think clause 8 (or something like it) should be mandatory. A right to religious belief is almost meaningless without a corresponding right to religious expression.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Imperial Polk County]

I think the current version of that clause itself is crystal clear that it's not mandatory. You're obviously the one who doesn't feel as confident in that wording, since you felt the need to add all those extraneous clauses.

I would think, if someone said to me "clause 8 is mandatory!" my response would be, "no it's not, read it again," rather than add the clauses that make the rest of us feel like dopes.

[States of Glory WA Office]

I think the current version of that clause itself is crystal clear that it's not mandatory. You're obviously the one who doesn't feel as confident in that wording, since you felt the need to add all those extraneous clauses.

Fairburn: As I've said, various Delegations have, prior to the inclusion of such clauses, tried to maintain that Clause Eight is mandatory.

I would think, if someone said to me "clause 8 is mandatory!" my response would be, "no it's not, read it again," rather than add the clauses that make the rest of us feel like dopes.

Fairburn: Where were you when various Ambassadors were saying that Clause Eight was mandatory?

[Imperial Polk County]

Fairburn: Where were you when various Ambassadors were saying that Clause Eight was mandatory?

The lavatory, probably. When you get to my age, sonny....

[Wallenburg]

I think the current version of that clause itself is crystal clear that it's not mandatory. You're obviously the one who doesn't feel as confident in that wording, since you felt the need to add all those extraneous clauses.

Fairburn: As I've said, various Delegations have, prior to the inclusion of such clauses, tried to maintain that Clause Eight is mandatory.

I would think, if someone said to me "clause 8 is mandatory!" my response would be, "no it's not, read it again," rather than add the clauses that make the rest of us feel like dopes.

Fairburn: Where were you when various Ambassadors were saying that Clause Eight was mandatory?

"Mr. Fairburn, I know it's very difficult for a man of such limited faculties as yourself to understand, but I can assure you that most, if not all, of those ambassadors were simply toying with you, being facetious." Ogenbond thumbs through his paperwork and stops at clause eight. "Hmm. Terrible shame too. The eighth clause would have made for a quite reasonable mandate."

[New Dukaine]

I'm confused why there are THREE. FUCKING. CLAUSES. explaining why it isn't mandatory?

As colleagues have said above, it's pretty clear that it's non mandatory with none.

Opposed.

Also I would think that 8 would be better mandatory

[Bitely]

I'm confused why there are THREE. FUCKING. CLAUSES. explaining why it isn't mandatory?

As colleagues have said above, it's pretty clear that it's non mandatory with none.

Opposed.

Also I would think that 8 would be better mandatory

I'm surprised that this wasn't ruled a joke due to that.

[The Marxist State]

Wow, its only operative clause is declared non-mandatory on 3 seperate occassions. The Secretariat really will approve anything nowadays, won't they?

[Bananaistan]

Wow, its only operative clause is declared non-mandatory on 3 seperate occassions. The Secretariat really will approve anything nowadays, won't they?

OOC: Clause 6 is mandatory.

[Edelfarat]

You just really love the phrase "not mandatory", don't you? It's a funny joke, but unfortunately our world don't run on jokes. The eighth clause, which is non-mandatory, is also plenty redundant as its sub-points were merely expansion of "do not otherwise break national or international laws", and essentially contradicts the sixth clause which mandates the same points.

Edelfarat hereby opposes this movement.

[Wrapper]

OOC: Hadn't noticed this before but the OP says strength is Strong but the submitted version has it as Significant. You should edit that OP, SoG.

[States of Glory WA Office]

The eighth clause...essentially contradicts the sixth clause which mandates the same points.

OOC: If you genuinely believe that the proposal is self-contradictory then file a Legality Challenge.

OOC: Hadn't noticed this before but the OP says strength is Strong but the submitted version has it as Signigicant. You should edit that OP, SoG.

OOC: I'll get right to that.

On a further note, I've had several GA regulars now stating that they'd have preferred Clause Eight to be mandatory. If I may ask: Why are you guys only bringing this up now? You've had over a year to make that comment! First, Limitations on Banishment gets shot down for doing nothing that Crime and Punishment doesn't already do, a point that was never once brought up during drafting; now I get complaints from people who have previously posted in this thread that Clause Eight should be mandatory. That wasn't worth bringing up, yet it was worth wasting my time over the meaning of the word 'request'? What the hell?

What's the point of drafting if no-one bothers to offer substantive criticisms against the draft until after it's been submitted and campaigned for? That's twice in a row now that I've been made to look a fool because significant issues weren't previously brought up. I don't mind the numerous non-regulars chipping in; that's to be expected. However, I trust, or at least I used to trust, the regulars to be honest with me over their feelings on this proposal.

We'll see how Ending Religious Persecution goes, but I swear, if I get GA regulars stomping it based on complaints that were never worded prior, I'm just going to go ahead and stop drafting proposals on this forum entirely as it will then be clear that no-one gives a damn about offering me constructive criticism until my proposals have already been beaten to the ground.

[Bananaistan]

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.

“I feel the biggest issue with the proposal arises here. Effectively these clauses add nothing to current international law. Under COCR the state can’t unfairly discriminate against religions but they can blanket ban stuff for everyone. Under these clauses, the state can’t unfairly discriminate against religion but they can blanket ban stuff for everyone.

OOC: Some of us did point out this issue near the start of the thread.

However, I seriously doubt that clause 8 in itself is the reason the proposal is failing. Had the fuckwittery with requests been omitted, this would have passed, or at least would have had a greater chance of passing. I suggest dropping all that BS and trying again. IIRC there was only one person who had any issue with the word requests whereas many other players advised you to drop the nonsense numerous times.

[States of Glory WA Office]

“I feel the biggest issue with the proposal arises here. Effectively these clauses add nothing to current international law. Under COCR the state can’t unfairly discriminate against religions but they can blanket ban stuff for everyone. Under these clauses, the state can’t unfairly discriminate against religion but they can blanket ban stuff for everyone.

OOC: Some of us did point out this issue near the start of the thread.

OOC: When in that comment did you advise that Clause Eight should be mandatory?

IIRC there was only one person who had any issue with the word requests whereas many other players advised you to drop the nonsense numerous times.

OOC: I recall at least two people who interpreted Clause Eight as being mandatory (EP and Ara) and I vaguely remember there being others (though I could be wrong).