[PASSED] Freedom of Religion

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

i cannot believe this hasnt been done, support

[Separatist Peoples]

Bell coughs, "Strong support."

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

"Right. Agreed. That's what this is."

[United Massachusetts]

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

"Right. Agreed. That's what this is."

Thoughts on the usage of "asserts"?

[United Massachusetts]

Updated

[Wallenburg]

"We appreciate the sentiments expressed in this proposal, although I must indicate my concern that theocratic regimes would use a resolution with this language to further justify their discriminatory practices, as well as their often cultish institutions. I will have to think this over carefully."

[Christian Democrats]

We support the concept behind this proposal and plan to vote for it, but we are not satisfied with the definition of religious belief. Also, the current draft uses the term religion without defining what religion is.

[United Massachusetts]

We support the concept behind this proposal and plan to vote for it, but we are not satisfied with the definition of religious belief. Also, the current draft uses the term religion without defining what religion is.

We have resolved the latter problem. I'd urge the Christian Democratic delegation to provide an alternative definition of religious belief if the present one doth not satisfy them.

[Christian Democrats]

We support the concept behind this proposal and plan to vote for it, but we are not satisfied with the definition of religious belief. Also, the current draft uses the term religion without defining what religion is.

We have resolved the latter problem. I'd urge the Christian Democratic delegation to provide an alternative definition of religious belief if the present one doth not satisfy them.

Any opinion or view pertaining to a god or gods, the worship of a god or gods, or the afterlife.

[Arotania]

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.

Was this supposed to be an another word?

Also what came out of of this:

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.

[United Massachusetts]

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.

Was this supposed to be an another word?

Also what came out of of this:

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.

Yes, but this will have to do.

I think he was fine w/ it, but I'll check again.

[Zone 71]

OOC: Would an "asserts" clause be similar in legislative authority to an encouragment clause, or to a mandate?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Would an "asserts" clause be similar in legislative authority to an encouragment clause, or to a mandate?

OOC: How is it anything but mandatory language?

[Wolfhawk]

concerned on how this might be a run around on previous legistration.

[Frisbeeteria]

concerned on how this might be a run around on previous legistration.

Well? Share those concerns with the rest of the class. And see if you can do so without that silly colored font. Use black, like the Big Kids do.

[Islansia Caliphate]

We, nation of Unitary State of Islansia Caliphate strongly agree with resolution of freedom of belief. However, our nation have a concern about resolution number 1a and number 5.

In respond to resolution number 1a about definition of religious, we recommend to use definition below

Religious belief as any set of spiritual belief regarding any belief in one God, many Gods, or supernatural power beyond logic of the living thing within the scope of divine concepts.

And In respond to resolution number 5 about nation being forced to adopt secular law, we recommend to use definition below

Strongly urges member nations who adopt a secular law or religious law to protect any religious practices and socializing religious harmony within society through to create a consensus to protect any religious belief and practice in community

Permanent Representative of Unitary State of Islansia Caliphate to World Assembly,


Ambassador Aliyu Alatas

[Sakaryata]

What i am worried about is that in clause 1, the definition of a religious belief is attached to something supernatural. What if the beliefs include nothing supernatural but earth wisdom beliefs? Are they not protected under freedom of religion?

This causes me to vote against.

[CarpeNoctem]

Too vague in terms of religiously held belief thus causing my vote of no

[Wallenburg]

What i am worried about is that in clause 1, the definition of a religious belief is attached to something supernatural. What if the beliefs include nothing supernatural but earth wisdom beliefs? Are they not protected under freedom of religion?

This causes me to vote against.

I'm not sure what you mean by "earth wisdom beliefs".

[Erithaca]

I cannot understand why Solborg voted against.

[Sougra]

I'm voting against because complete atheism is a policy in the game and players should have a right to do so, although I do highly believe in freedom of religion as I am religious myself.

[Wallenburg]

I'm voting against because complete atheism is a policy in the game and players should have a right to do so, although I do highly believe in freedom of religion as I am religious myself.

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,

+1 didn't read the resolution.

[Louranie]

Louranie will vote against this resolution.

Despite historically being a supporter of the right of any individual to adhere to religious practices without fear of punishment, and also having a secular stance towards religious practice, it disagrees with clause 3 of the resolution.

Referring to the resolution, it did not explicitly state that "religious practices" were necessarily peaceful and they won't sow discord in society. Furthermore, clause 3 stated "least restrictive means". We oppose clause 3 for a few reasons, namely:

1. It is hard to draw a parallel between what is "least restrictive" and what is "more restrictive". It could be from the perspective of the lawmaker, the jury, or the victim who committed such acts. Thus, there is ambiguity in the resolution.

2. In order to maintain and secure the interest of the general public, we feel that some religious practices, which might cause disarray and a potential danger to the safety of the nation, or inflict harm to non-believers, need to be outlawed. This resolution assumes that it is perfectly justified for people to commit such acts. As such, certain means which may not be the "least restrictive" have to be applied.

Louranie also looks into repealing this resolution, if passed.

[Iciaros]

Probably a bit late since this is already at vote, but without an international body responsible for qualifying the exception in Clause 3, who gets to define what comprises a "compelling, practical public interest"? Compelling is just an issue of degree, which people can disagree on eternally, and almost anything can be argued to be practical in the interests of safety, health or good order - if a nation chose to outlaw practices of all but one religion in the interest of religious homogeneity, and therefore public order (since fewer differences between people = fewer causes for conflict), would it not serve a practical purpose?

Of course, there is the issue of the 'least restrictive means', but depending on what your purpose is even apparently overbearing methods can be the least restrictive - the least restrictive way to create religious homogeneity would be to, say, outlaw the teaching of all other religions, if not the practice itself. How else would religious homogeneity, which serves good order, be achieved?

I think at the end of the day, most people agree that there should be a tradeoff. We sacrifice some freedoms in exchange for some order, some flexibility in exchange for some certainty. But everybody will disagree on where to draw the line. Because this resolution doesn't draw that line for us, it is a bit too easy to sidestep - everyone will just end up drawing their own lines.

[Sougra]

I'm voting against because complete atheism is a policy in the game and players should have a right to do so, although I do highly believe in freedom of religion as I am religious myself.

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,

+1 didn't read the resolution.

There is a policy on NS that states that religion is illegal, and I believe member states should have that option. Note that I said complete atheism. I don't agree with it at all, but they have the option to do so. I'd support a resolution that only limits the punishment you can do towards those who practice religion, and that gives them that protection and not make nations who are completely atheist to allow religion since it's against their beliefs. Also, legitimately good joke. I'm not even joking about that.

[Cycrania]

The Commonwealth of Cycrania is voting against this resolution due primarily to the ambiguity around Clause 3 which will result in this resolution being almost impossible to realistically enforce, as mentioned by other nations. We stand firmly by our own policies of religious freedom, and fully support internationally backed affirmation of this critical right, but the resolution in its current state is lacking in certain areas. This provides loopholes through which nations can effectively outlaw free religious practice, and as already mentioned Clause 3 remains far too ambiguous, and nations could easily interpret this to enact an unjust ban on religious groups that are causing no harm at all. For this reason unless the resolution is severely revised, specifically Clause 3, then our vote shall remain against.