[PASSED] Freedom of Religion

[Christian Democrats]

After considerable reflection, I have decided to vote against the resolution. When Scion advised me on a proposal, he recused himself from voting on its legality. When CD practically writes half the proposal and pawns it off on Mass over here, that's just fine, he votes on the proposal's legality, and it can go without comment. That cannot go without comment.

That accusation is serious and also entirely unsubstantiated.

In addition, it's a non-sequitur. The text in red does not follow from the text in blue.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

"After consultation, we abstain. On the one hand, it is vitally important that this institution's fanatical bigotry towards the religious of all persuasions must end, and this is an important step in that direction. On the other hand, we cannot support even a mild call to secularism or the legal standard but forward for restricting improper practices."

OOC: I cannot, and will not support any proposal that would lead to an American style regime of so-called "religious freedom." I certainly want a resolution on the books, and I look forward to arguing against all sorts of things on the basis it contradicts the standard, but I cannot in good faith vote for a proposal that enshrines such a ridiculous standard.

[Wallenburg]

"After consultation, we abstain. On the one hand, it is vitally important that this institution's fanatical bigotry towards the religious of all persuasions must end, and this is an important step in that direction. On the other hand, we cannot support even a mild call to secularism or the legal standard but forward for restricting improper practices."

OOC: I cannot, and will not support any proposal that would lead to an American style regime of so-called "religious freedom." I certainly want a resolution on the books, and I look forward to arguing against all sorts of things on the basis it contradicts the standard, but I cannot in good faith vote for a proposal that enshrines such a ridiculous standard.

OOC: My delegation is all for a resolution that restricts religious freedom even more, if that's what you want.

[Little Tralfamadore]

In a land with religious freedom you can not have blasphemy laws because anything could be blasphemy.

Equally in a land with religious freedoms you can not have a law like this one that allows carte blanche activity provided you claim it is your religious belief. A real or made-up belief should not give you special treatement nor exempion from the law

Also this:

Strongly urges all member nations to refrain from criminalising victimless crimes when performed out of a genuinely-held religious belief,

What if a member nation religious belief is that victimless crimes must be criminalised when performed out of a genuinely-held religious belief?
For that matter the entire resolution could be counter-acted by a member nation claiming its relgious beliefs require them to.

While we're at it can a member nation ignore other WA resoluions by claiming religious beliefs>

(not to mention who decides if it "genuinely held"

[Northern Francia]

I am concerned about provision 5: "Strongly urges member nations to adopt a secular policy towards religious practice."

What do we mean by "secular policy"? Does this mean that state Churches should be dis-established?

What do we mean by "strongly urge"?

[Kenmoria]

I am concerned about provision 5: "Strongly urges member nations to adopt a secular policy towards religious practice."

What do we mean by "secular policy"? Does this mean that state Churches should be dis-established?

What do we mean by "strongly urge"?

"Strongly urge" means that the proposal recommends, but does not force, member states to perform an action. "Secular policy" means separation of church and state, which, depending on whom you ask, could include the dismantlement of state churches.

[Northern Francia]

I am concerned about provision 5: "Strongly urges member nations to adopt a secular policy towards religious practice."

What do we mean by "secular policy"? Does this mean that state Churches should be dis-established?

What do we mean by "strongly urge"?

"Strongly urge" means that the proposal recommends, but does not force, member states to perform an action. "Secular policy" means separation of church and state, which, depending on whom you ask, could include the dismantlement of state churches.

So "recommends, but does not force" means that provision 5 has no teeth. Correct?

[Krennia]

Can you, please, remove the clause which encourages nations to be secular? If you can’t, that’s fine anyways, Krennia will support this resolution.

Mark Austin
Prime Emissary of the Commonwealth of Krennia in the World Assembly

[Mordheimar]

Comrades, my nation is somewhat new to this assembly and to this "One World" way of thinking. For centuries I have watched the forced spread of Christianity and the destruction of many pagan religions. I have survived the purges, the witch trials, and the Inquisitions myself. It was for this reason that I took my people and left the old world and how I first came to the Pacific.

I want my people to have the freedom to enjoy life without fear of judgement. They may practice their beliefs as they see fit so long as they do not publicly advocate them. I will not allow my land to be torn apart by religious unrest. The state must remain ever vigilant to protect its people. So for this reason I must urge you to vote against this "Freedom of Religion" act.

Necrosin Evalmynd
Lord High Necromancer of Mordheim

[Northern Francia]

In a land with religious freedom you can not have blasphemy laws because anything could be blasphemy.

Equally in a land with religious freedoms you can not have a law like this one that allows carte blanche activity provided you claim it is your religious belief. A real or made-up belief should not give you special treatement nor exempion from the law

Also this:

Strongly urges all member nations to refrain from criminalising victimless crimes when performed out of a genuinely-held religious belief,

What if a member nation religious belief is that victimless crimes must be criminalised when performed out of a genuinely-held religious belief?
For that matter the entire resolution could be counter-acted by a member nation claiming its relgious beliefs require them to.

While we're at it can a member nation ignore other WA resoluions by claiming religious beliefs>

(not to mention who decides if it "genuinely held"

The nation itself, as a sovereign state decides (or rather, recognizes) what is a genuinely held religious belief.

Also, I am not sure what you mean by this: "What if a member nation religious belief is that victimless crimes must be criminalised when performed out of a genuinely-held religious belief? For that matter the entire resolution could be counter-acted by a member nation claiming its relgious beliefs require them to." Could you clarify?

[Pallaith]

The current proposal is an earnest attempt at securing religious rights and freedoms for citizens of WA member nations who may otherwise be forced to worship or not worship specific deities. The proposal allows member nations freedom over the specific criminalization of acts that may threaten the safety, health, or good order when brought upon by religion or persecution thereof. It is important to mention that this proposal protects the rights of citizens to legally practice religion in groups and fear no repercussions as well as the right of citizens to refuse specific religious practices that may have formerly been prescribed by the member nation. Should future application of this resolution be abused, the ministry will seek a repeal and replacement for the abused piece of legislation.

[Auralia]

In the judgment of the author, does the term "religious practice" encompass ordinary conduct not associated with a religious ritual but nonetheless taken in accordance with the moral principles of a religion, such as conscientious objection?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Kenmoria]

"Strongly urge" means that the proposal recommends, but does not force, member states to perform an action. "Secular policy" means separation of church and state, which, depending on whom you ask, could include the dismantlement of state churches.

So "recommends, but does not force" means that provision 5 has no teeth. Correct?

Correct,

[HerpDeDerp]

We are very worried about the third statement because we require citizens to recite our anthem, but religion can stop this. We also require citizens to have children watch atleast 4 hours of state television a day. This resolution could prevent this. I wish we could support this, but we just can't.

[Araraukar]

"Since nothing in the text requires a change to Araraukar's policy on treating all religions equally, our vote has been cast for the proposal," Johan said, refraining from mentioning that Araraukarian policy on religions was that of unilateral suppression. Fortunately nothing in the text prevented that either.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Since nothing in the text requires a change to Araraukar's policy on treating all religions equally, our vote has been cast for the proposal," Johan said, refraining from mentioning that Araraukarian policy on religions was that of unilateral suppression. Fortunately nothing in the text prevented that either.

"If your nation has a genuine policy of discouraging religion, ambassador, you need only consider that a compelling practical purpose. It seems that the author's goal did not consider that a policy to discourage religious belief can be justified as compelling with relative ease."

[Araraukar]

"If your nation has a genuine policy of discouraging religion, ambassador

OOC: Technically, unless you're really good at reading bureaucratic Araraukarian language or have managed to find a non-diplomatic citizen to talk to, that's not something you'd know off the hand. (Well okay, Mr. Bell might know, if he's paid proper attention to Janis on the topic of religion in related debates over the years.)

you need only consider that a compelling practical purpose.

The IC justification is similar to some RL nations' (France is one, I think?) religious symbol ban in schools. (And because there are horrible genocidal wars based on religious differences in the nation's IC history.)

[Triangle And Square]

TNP's viewpoint on this:

The current proposal is an earnest attempt at securing religious rights and freedoms for citizens of WA member nations who may otherwise be forced to worship or not worship specific deities. The proposal allows member nations freedom over the specific criminalization of acts that may threaten the safety, health, or good order when brought upon by religion or persecution thereof. It is important to mention that this proposal protects the rights of citizens to legally practice religion in groups and fear no repercussions as well as the right of citizens to refuse specific religious practices that may have formerly been prescribed by the member nation. Should future application of this resolution be abused, the ministry will seek a repeal and replacement for the abused piece of legislation.

In accordance with the aforementioned reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For this proposal.

[Mesherica]

Despite the religion is the opium of the people, everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, so we will vote for the proposal.

[Wolfhawk]

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.

if this what moderation considers appropriate response then voting against and taking a long break frrm game

[Little Tralfamadore]

In a land with religious freedom you can not have blasphemy laws because anything could be blasphemy.

Equally in a land with religious freedoms you can not have a law like this one that allows carte blanche activity provided you claim it is your religious belief. A real or made-up belief should not give you special treatement nor exempion from the law

Also this:


What if a member nation religious belief is that victimless crimes must be criminalised when performed out of a genuinely-held religious belief?
For that matter the entire resolution could be counter-acted by a member nation claiming its relgious beliefs require them to.

While we're at it can a member nation ignore other WA resoluions by claiming religious beliefs>

(not to mention who decides if it "genuinely held"

The nation itself, as a sovereign state decides (or rather, recognizes) what is a genuinely held religious belief.

Also, I am not sure what you mean by this: "What if a member nation religious belief is that victimless crimes must be criminalised when performed out of a genuinely-held religious belief? For that matter the entire resolution could be counter-acted by a member nation claiming its relgious beliefs require them to." Could you clarify?

What is meant by the last bit is claiming a belief in anything may allow you to violate any law - including the law granting religios freedom

Strongly urges all member nations to refrain from criminalising victimless crimes when performed out of a genuinely-held religious belief,

The point was exactly what I said. We are encouraged to not criminalize victimless crimes as long as someone claims a belief. THe point is that belief could include requiring to criminalize victimless crimes only when done because of a supernatural belief.

Makes the whole thing silly

[SABDR]

No sirree I'd like to keep my people safe from the evils of extreme cults such as Jake Paulism and the evils of Thottery. The Democratic Republic of SABDR opposes this resolution.

Unity, Discipline, Work.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"If your nation has a genuine policy of discouraging religion, ambassador

OOC: Technically, unless you're really good at reading bureaucratic Araraukarian language or have managed to find a non-diplomatic citizen to talk to, that's not something you'd know off the hand. (Well okay, Mr. Bell might know, if he's paid proper attention to Janis on the topic of religion in related debates over the years.)

you need only consider that a compelling practical purpose.

The IC justification is similar to some RL nations' (France is one, I think?) religious symbol ban in schools. (And because there are horrible genocidal wars based on religious differences in the nation's IC history.)

OOC: I don't see how you guys get the conclusion "treating all religions as equally bad is A-OK" without falling foul of clause 2. The "compelling, practical public interest" exemption is for laws against particular religious practices, whose practicality and efficacy must be judged individually to ascertain whether they are "the least restrictive means" of accomplishing that goal. General discouragement of religion would fall under "persecution" (however mild) in Clause 2. And blanket bans are almost never going to be the least restrictive means of accomplishing any practical goal, let alone one that involves trying to get people to make their own critically-thought-out choices without resorting to supernatural beliefs.

TL;dr - the loophole you seem to see is a wall you're gonna bang your head on trying to jump right through.

[Red Foxia]

I'm for it!

Freedom is the best.

[Araraukar]

OOC: The "compelling, practical public interest" exemption is for laws against particular religious practices

OOC: Believe me, Araraukarian bureaucracy is well able to list any and every possible religious practice (you know the country is basically ruled by its bureaucratic system, right?) and the compelling reason would be to prevent mob justice being meted out on said practitioners by those who believe otherwise or don't believe at all. I did mention genocidal wars based on religious beliefs, didn't I? The tensions were basically never resolved, just pushed under the rug by a blanket ban on public displays of religion.

Though I think I should point out that people are free to believe whatever they want, and in private allowed to do whatever rituals that don't break national laws otherwise (like, say, killing wild animals without proper licencing and permissions to do so). It's only a "where it's reasonably certain that a random member of the public can see you" ban. And of course the usual "don't make so much noise it disturbs the neighbours" and all that applies, like it applies on parties and other gatherings.

So given all that, I don't really see where Araraukarian policy would violate this particular resolution, especially given its clause 5.