[PASSED] Freedom of Religion

[Frisbeeteria]

---

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: United Massachusetts

---

Lauding this Assembly's previous efforts to protect a plethora of rights and liberties, ranging from freedom of speech to healthcare access,

Concerned, however, that the esteemed ambassadors of the world have to this point been unable to pass legislation guaranteeing the fundamental right of sapient creatures to freely practice religion, leading to an odd situation where international legislation legalising circumcision exists, but not guaranteeing freedom of religion,

Again asserting that foremost among the rights entitled to creatures is the right to peacefully worship any deity one pleases, or to refrain from doing so,

Understanding that due to the complexities and intricacies an religious practice, legislation in regards to the topic of religion ought to be careful, straightforward, and respectful

The General Assembly, finally transcribing the freedom of religion into international law, hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, the following terms:
   1. "religious belief" as any set of spiritual beliefs regarding the nature and origins of the universe involving a concept of the divine or supernatural,
   2. "religious practice" as any practice associated with a religion, be it practiced through rituals, prayer, or any other sort of activity, performed either individually or in a group,
2. Asserts the right of all individuals in World Assembly member-states to hold any religious belief, including a lack of religious beliefs, without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution,
   
   
3. Asserts, furthermore, the right of all individuals in World Assembly member-states to engage in any religious practice, or to refuse to engage in said practices, without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution, except where restrictions on said practice are the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order,
   
   
4. Asserts the right of all individuals to gather into groups, organisations, and institutions associated with religious belief without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution, subject to the same restrictions established in Clause 3,
   
   
5. Strongly urges member nations to adopt a secular policy towards religious practice,
   
   
6. Strongly urges all member nations to refrain from criminalising victimless crimes when performed out of a genuinely-held religious belief,
   
   
7. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall be construed as preventing member nations from taking action against those groups whose religious beliefs manifest themselves in violence or coercive action.

EDIT: On second check, this is rather similar, albeit slightly different, than States of Glory's draft awhile back. I assure you that though this purely coincidental. I will, nonetheless, contact SoG for approval to continue with this draft.

[Auralia]

We are broadly supportive of General Assembly legislation protecting religious freedom. Our delegation had prepared a similar draft some months ago that you may wish to consult in developing your own.

We will have some more specific comments to offer on this draft at a later date.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Kenmoria]

"This looks good so far, but I would change the underlining around the definitions to italics or being surrounded by speech marks. This is mainly because underlining just doesn't look that good."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"This looks good so far, but I would change the underlining around the definitions to italics or being surrounded by speech marks. This is mainly because underlining just doesn't look that good."

I agree, with the caveat that speech marks, I believe, are the standard.

[United Massachusetts]

"This looks good so far, but I would change the underlining around the definitions to italics or being surrounded by speech marks. This is mainly because underlining just doesn't look that good."

I agree, with the caveat that speech marks, I believe, are the standard.

"The change has been made."

[Burninati0n]

We wouldn't consider this proposal to be "Strong," (in the category of Human Rights) given the caveats in the 3rd clause (those caveats pretty much ensure that the resolution would not protect very many religious practices), and given that it makes no effort to protect religious institutions themselves. (If nations are allowed to restrict religious institutions without running afoul of the provisions of the resolution, they can largely restrict religion in practice.)

So, we would consider this resolution more properly in the "Mild" or "Significant" range.

[Separatist Peoples]

occurs in an organisation which uses coercive, manipulative, and/or violent means to control its members,

"Don't use And/Or. Use either And or Or. In this case, use Or. And/Or is unnecessary. Beyond that, we are broadly supportive, as this clause allows states to find the more offensive forms of proselytizing to be manipulative or coercive.

"We are also broadly in favor of a law which doesn't interfere with our taxation policies on churches. While the C.D.S.P. is loathe to ban churches, we see no reason to grant them tax-exempt charitable organization status. We may have to tolerate poor individual decisions, but we need not encourage them. Provided states retain broad leeway to pursue policies that disincentivize but do not ban religious practices, we can remain generally in favor."

[United Massachusetts]

We wouldn't consider this proposal to be "Strong," (in the category of Human Rights) given the caveats in the 3rd clause (those caveats pretty much ensure that the resolution would not protect very many religious practices), and given that it makes no effort to protect religious institutions themselves. (If nations are allowed to restrict religious institutions without running afoul of the provisions of the resolution, they can largely restrict religion in practice.)

So, we would consider this resolution more properly in the "Mild" or "Significant" range.

I disagree with the notion that the caveats render the resolution toothless. Almost all mainstream religions do not fit said caveats, and are, therefore, protected.

Furthermore, I have written in a temporary clause protecting religious institutions.

[Burninati0n]

I disagree with the notion that the caveats render the resolution toothless. Almost all mainstream religions do not fit said caveats, and are, therefore, protected.

A matter of opinion and interpretation, my friend. The majority opinion, perhaps, but an opinion nevertheless. 3.b., "occurs in an organization which uses...manipulative...means to control its members."

Certainly some might consider the attempts of religion to regulate moral conduct through threat of fire and brimstone "manipulative," rendering most mainstream religions not protected due to that clause alone.

Not your opinion, perhaps -- but then, you won't be in charge of enforcing the provisions of the proposal on every individual member state. And this kind of argument seems like it would be common enough that plenty of nations would avail themselves of such a loophole, which is why I'd consider the proposal at best, "significant" and not "strong." (This, I think, is a strength of the proposal, though, not a weakness... At least as far as I'm concerned, it's one of the only reasons I'd consider supporting the proposal personally.)

Furthermore, I have written in a temporary clause protecting religious institutions.

We'd think that this protection should be subject to the same caveats under section 3, which was likely your intent, but is unclear as written.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

3. Asserts, furthermore, the right of all individuals in World Assembly member-states to engage in any religious practice, or to refuse to engage in said practices, without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution, except where said religious practice:

1. involves engaging in reckless, dangerous, or violent activity,
2. occurs in an organisation which uses coercive, manipulative, and/or violent means to control its members,
3. causes severe emotional or physical trauma to its practicioners

"Support, broadly speaking. The exceptions in paragraph 3 will need expansion, of course: one can imagine an otherwise harmless cult whose members are required to lie profusely, including under oath in legal proceedings. Member states should not be required to legalize conduct that would be illegal if not performed for religious purposes. They should only have to refrain from criminalizing practices that are accepted on an individual or secular basis."

"We would certainly support an encouragement of member states to permit practices that might be generally illegal but are in actuality victimless crimes - for example, ritual drug use by priests or shamans or other adult congregants seeking divine inspiration. But requiring the legalization of perjury is a bridge too far."

OOC: You might consider refactoring more language than that - as I consider belief in Hell (i.e. the idea that the creator of the universe would consign people to a literal eternity of torture) to be in and of itself a sign of "severe emotional trauma" I might well ban (for example) all non-universalist Abrahamic religion quite legally under this wording.

[Burninati0n]

You might consider refactoring more language than that - as I consider belief in Hell (i.e. the idea that the creator of the universe would consign people to a literal eternity of torture) to be in and of itself a sign of "severe emotional trauma" I might well ban (for example) all non-universalist Abrahamic religion quite legally under this wording.

This was the thrust of my comment, actually, but I felt that the fact that this is up to interpretation is something that gets my support!

[United Massachusetts]

"As strongly as I disagree with the notion that Abrahamic religion is "manipulative," I capitulate at the moment, and will remove the manipulation and trauma caveats from the resolution. I hope they can be replaced when I come up with a solution."

[Masurbia]

I'm surprised that this hasn't already been implemented. Nevertheless, support.

[Separatist Peoples]

"As strongly as I disagree with the notion that Abrahamic religion is "manipulative," I capitulate at the moment, and will remove the manipulation and trauma caveats from the resolution. I hope they can be replaced when I come up with a solution."

"The current wording can still be used to limit unsavory monotheistic practices, and so our support is continued."

[Burninati0n]

"As strongly as I disagree with the notion that Abrahamic religion is "manipulative," I capitulate at the moment, and will remove the manipulation and trauma caveats from the resolution. I hope they can be replaced when I come up with a solution."

Your current draft now removes most of this impetus, and perhaps no further solution is needed. If I wanted to ban an Abrahamic religion under it as it stands, I'd have to use the "coercion" clause and argue that threatening followers with fire and brimstone constitutes coercion. Certainly an unlikely argument, although potentially not impossible. Given the removal of much of the ability to get around these clauses and the addition of some support for religious institutions as well, Burnination now concurs that this resolution merits the status of "Significant" or "Strong" (as opposed to earlier, where we argued that it was "Mild" or "Significant").

With that said, we are now reluctant to support the draft (while before it would have received full support). It has, however, advanced to the point where line-by-line discussion seems warranted.

Some specific changes would help return us to support:
1) "Concerned, however, that the esteemed ambassadors of the world have to this point been unable to pass legislation guaranteeing the fundamental right of sapient creatures to freely practice religion..."
--> Has the WA failed to pass a resolution on this topic before? Either change this line to simply say that the WA has not passed a resolution, or cite where it tried, and "was unable to pass" a resolution guaranteeing this as a right. (We are not familiar with such an instance and are somewhat put off by it if it is indeed an inaccuracy.)

2) a religious belief's definition as "any set of beliefs regarding the nature and origins of the universe"
--> Applies way too broad a definition; the specification of religion as any set of spiritual beliefs would suffice to fix this issue. (Before that addition, the standard model of the Universe as described by classical physics is a "religious belief," as well as pretty much any other belief about the nature of something.)

We also note that clauses 2 and 3 are quite similar and thus seem apt for combination, although this is hardly an important complaint. (I.e. "...to hold any religious belief, engage in any religious practice, or refuse to hold any religious belief or engage in any religious practice, without fear...")

[United Massachusetts]

bump

[Kenmoria]

"I would add to clause 3c that the worship can be prohibited if it contradicts existing WA legislation."

[Christian Democrats]

Our recommendations:

• Raise the strength of the proposal to Strong.
• Rewrite the preamble in more general terms.
• Refer to God (or gods) in the preamble.
• Redefine "religious belief," or leave it undefined. The current wording defines cosmology.
• Change the word "individuals" to "persons," and clarify that collective worship is a right.
  
  • Example: "Affirms the right of all persons, whether individually or collectively, to hold any religious belief, including a lack of religious beliefs, without fear of punishment, reprisal, or persecution."
• The promotion of secularism in Section 5 seems to violate the spirit of the Ideological Ban Rule.

[Burninati0n]

I think reference to "the supernatural" beats out "deities or gods" as you put it, since "the supernatural" will more properly cover a ton of belief systems that are religious but don't have deities.

[Kenmoria]

"The current definition of religion excludes most forms of animism and ancestor worship."

[Burninati0n]

"The current definition of religion excludes most forms of animism and ancestor worship."

My point precisely.

[United Massachusetts]

Consider this bumped.

[Zone 71]

I am in full support of GA legislation to assure the freedom of religious practice to all citizens under the World Assembly. However, I am puzzled by the use of "asserts" as a form of operative clause. The assertion of a belief or claim sounds more like an encouragement clause than a mandate. When you assert that the freedom of religion shall be protected within nations under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, it sounds as though you're strongly urging nations to protect the freedom of religion - not mandating them to. I would strongly recommend that you replace the "asserts" operative clauses with "mandates." Otherwise, I cannot support this proposal.

[Separatist Peoples]

Bell coughs, "Strong support."

[United Massachusetts]

Bell coughs, "Strong support."

"Ambassador Bell--I think this is the first time we've agreed on anything."