[DISCUSSION] Abolishing the ideological ban rule

[Tzorsland]

Well, clearly you can't ban specific religions because specific religions are based on RL references by default.

My memory keeps telling me that Christianity at least was ruled as not counting as RL reference due to many nations roleplaying as such (rather than just one or two). If my memory is correct, then yes, you could ban Christianity if this rule was changed.

But Christianity is a hard to define construct. (It is ironically not a "specific religion" as there are a number of "Orthodox" , "Catholic" , "Protestant" etc specific religions.) It is easier to reference, but harder to "ban" outright, without a number of these groups merely changing their "name" so they no longer appear "Christian."

You could ban religious ideologies by defining them according to their logical definition and ignoring the RL references, but why would you?

To end theocracies?

It's an old way to ban a theocracy. I would say it's an impossible way since you simply could have a theocracy without a religion. You mentioned North Korea and this is a good example; it's not a "religion" per se but the government enforcing thought crimes at anyone who doesn't believe their leader is all supreme. But not all theocracies imply a thought crime police.

In the end, that's the real problem with ideologies; they are flexible, amorphous and adapting. There are plenty of real world examples of this. Banning the elements within a ideology is possible because these elements are well defined and don't change.

[Frisbeeteria]

Well, clearly you can't ban specific religions because specific religions are based on RL references by default.

My memory keeps telling me that Christianity at least was ruled as not counting as RL reference due to many nations roleplaying as such (rather than just one or two). If my memory is correct, then yes, you could ban Christianity if this rule was changed.

I've always ruled that specific religions weren't RL references because they have been explicitly part of the game for years. Catholicism has been present in issues since long before the WA or UN rules were written. It's in issue #6 "Appointment Of Spiritual Advisor", #39, and many others. Christians were specifically mentioned in issue #3, "Harry Potter Censorship Row". Yes, most of the mentions are in Max Barry's original 30 issues, and since the creation of the "National Religion", issue editors use that instead.

FWIW, There isn't any explicit mention of "Islam", "Hindu", "Buddhist", or "Sikh"; but I've always included them when deciding GA rulings on RL references. Mind you, most "Ban the Muslims" proposals are usually trolling or have other RL references, so it's usually moot.

[Tzorsland]

I've always ruled that specific religions weren't RL references because they have been explicitly part of the game for years. Catholicism has been present in issues since long before the WA or UN rules were written. It's in issue #6 "Appointment Of Spiritual Advisor", #39, and many others. Christians were specifically mentioned in issue #3, "Harry Potter Censorship Row". Yes, most of the mentions are in Max Barry's original 30 issues, and since the creation of the "National Religion", issue editors use that instead.

Yes, the few issues that references "Catholic" or "Christian" for that matter have always been sore points but that is another issue. These are referenced as throwaway lines. The problem is you can't define "Catholic" without defining the real world nationstate of Vatican City. (Just as you can't define "Russian Orthodox" without the real world nationstate of Russia.) Whereas you can throw around references without defining them it's hard to ban something without defining it.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

Hence banning the whole of Christianity in one go would be easier.

[Imperium Anglorum]

*snip*

Hence banning the whole of Christianity in one go would be easier.

I don't see how this is possibly relevant to the ideological ban rule.

[Bears Armed]

*snip*

Hence banning the whole of Christianity in one go would be easier.

But would you count Mormons as 'Christian' for that purpose? Spiritualists? Universal Unitarians?

[Bears Armed]

I've always ruled that specific religions weren't RL references because they have been explicitly part of the game for years. Catholicism has been present in issues since long before the WA or UN rules were written.

But we've been told, for years, that issues and the UN/WA are two separate parts of the game, and don't affect each other, hence the fact that WA members can choose to answer issues in ways that aren't compliant with existing GA resolutions...

[Calladan]

Hence banning the whole of Christianity in one go would be easier.

I don't see how this is possibly relevant to the ideological ban rule.

I suppose it would depend on how far the ideological ban rule goes. A theocratic government - one run on Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam, or Zorpism, could be considered an ideological government and thus - currently - protected by the ban (so to speak).

So - logically - if you outlaw Christianity you would be outlawing a governmental type, just like democracy or communism.

[Tzorsland]

Hence banning the whole of Christianity in one go would be easier.

Sure, go ahead and try to define "Christianity."

You might have an easier time banning Violetism.

[Switzo-Polish Republic]

Screw banning ideologies altogether! It is called ideological freedom people! Just because you aren't the same doesn't meen that all different things are bad.

[Frisbeeteria]

I've always ruled that specific religions weren't RL references because they have been explicitly part of the game for years. Catholicism has been present in issues since long before the WA or UN rules were written.

But we've been told, for years, that issues and the UN/WA are two separate parts of the game, and don't affect each other, hence the fact that WA members can choose to answer issues in ways that aren't compliant with existing GA resolutions...

Just giving background. I never claimed it was a logical or supportable ruling. That's what y'all are here to decide.

Edit: just a suggestion, but I wouldn't go too far out on a limb with RL references. OOC, we're all humans in an English-speaking human society. We need things like miles and meters; months and Mondays, and all the other background minutiae we steal from RL every day here. Even upright Bears and Sentient Plants need to use common terms if they're ever to agree on anything. We understand Christianity and Christmas, Judaism and the Torah, Islam and The Golden Dome. Probably no one outside of my fictional nation (except George Carlin) understands Frisbeeterianism. RL religion is a useful starting point.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Honestly, my opinion here is that the ideological ban rule is a quality standard, and I'm hard pressed to see how the quality of the GA would increase with removing it...

As far as interpretation, the controlling precedent (iirc) is that you simply can't wholesale ban the practice/adoption of a major ideology. But you can certainly kill it with a million cuts, unless GenSec decides in the future to adopt some kind of aggregate effect interpretation.

[Aclion]

Screw banning ideologies altogether! It is called ideological freedom people! Just because you aren't the same doesn't meen that all different things are bad.

And you want to impose this idea of ideological freedom on the rest of us?

[Araraukar]

OOC, we're all humans in an English-speaking human society.

*raises hand* Um, I'm not. OOCly I'm a human who knows English in a Finnish-speaking human society. NationStates is an English-writing online bunch of loonies (but lovely loonies) pretending to be nations.

---

As for the religion ban thing, I'm fairly sure that I started by saying that I would try to ban theocracies. Others started pulling in Catholics and Orthodoxes. The whole point is that it's technically easier to ban a larger category (whether it's Christianity, monotheism, pantheism or whatever worship) than a specific subgroup. And it could be easily written to be a Human Rights one, especially if someone manages to repeal CoCR.

---

Honestly, my opinion here is that the ideological ban rule is a quality standard, and I'm hard pressed to see how the quality of the GA would increase with removing it...

Also, ^this.

[Frisbeeteria]

As for the religion ban thing, I'm fairly sure that I started by saying that I would try to ban theocracies. Others started pulling in Catholics and Orthodoxes

My concern as a rules enforcer is that an explicit statement about religion will tie our hands when people inevitably troll Muslims and other, currently unpopular religious groups. I don't want game rules on trolling competing with GA rules that somehow allow it.

OOCly I'm a human who knows English in a Finnish-speaking human society. NationStates is an English-writing online bunch of loonies (but lovely loonies) pretending to be nations.

I sit corrected.

[Sciongrad]

Honestly, my opinion here is that the ideological ban rule is a quality standard, and I'm hard pressed to see how the quality of the GA would increase with removing it...

I think there are other ways of enforcing the rule. Frankly, it literally only bans boilerplate "bans capitalism" proposals, which will never make it to vote anyway. When it comes to issues like that, we should leave it to the voters. Otherwise, we have to bend over backwards justifying why certain ideologies can functionally banned as long as it's not explicit.

[Araraukar]

I don't want game rules on trolling competing with GA rules that somehow allow it.

I'm against removing the ideological ban rule for any reason, but yes, that is one of the big reasons against removal. And it's not just religions, it's unpopular political ideologies as well.

I sit corrected.

I see what you did there.

[Bears Armed]

I’ve put together a summary of how I think the ‘No Ideological Bans’ rule should actually work on the basis of past rulings, which is how I will interpret it for making rulings unless & until we agree either to adopt an alternative version or to drop it altogether. This falls into two sections:

1/. GA resolutions can neither compel nor prohibit the use of any particular system of government in member nations, although they can otherwise restrict the actions of whatever governments those nations do have.
2/. GA resolutions cannot bar people from holding any ideology, from promoting any ideology through peaceful means, from following any ideology’s rules voluntarily where that would not be prevented by other factors, or from forming groups (such as political parties, for example, or religious movements) linked to any ideology; and cannot make adherence to any ideology either a requirement for holding public office or due cause for disqualification from public office. They can, however, prohibit the forcing of any ideology’s rules and practices on people who do not voluntarily choose to follow that ideology. (Note that “GA Resolutions” do NOT count as an ideology for this purpose, so the GA will always be able to insist that those be enforced…)

[Excidium Planetis]

But in a more wider question, why would you want to ban any ideology?

Because it is dangerous and threatens the safety of your citizens?

Say there was a religion which called on its followers to capture and sacrifice unconsenting sapient beings to the great god of fire, and practice arson of Tuesdays. Wouldn't you want to ban that religion?

[Separatist Peoples]

But in a more wider question, why would you want to ban any ideology?

Because it is dangerous and threatens the safety of your citizens?

Say there was a religion which called on its followers to capture and sacrifice unconsenting sapient beings to the great god of fire, and practice arson of Tuesdays. Wouldn't you want to ban that religion?

I might try banning human sacrifices and arson, first. There are alternatives to banning an ideology.

Is there any ideology harmful to citizens that cannot be mitigated by restricting practices rather than the belief system itself?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Because it is dangerous and threatens the safety of your citizens?

Say there was a religion which called on its followers to capture and sacrifice unconsenting sapient beings to the great god of fire, and practice arson of Tuesdays. Wouldn't you want to ban that religion?

I might try banning human sacrifices and arson, first. There are alternatives to banning an ideology.

Is there any ideology harmful to citizens that cannot be mitigated by restricting practices rather than the belief system itself?

...Especially with the high likelihood of such an ideology becoming romantic and martyr-intensive now that the big bad government is coming in and telling people their faith itself is illegal. That always ends well.

To seriously answer SP's question, you could possibly make a case that ideologies focused on making people angry tend to harm everyone by increasing the blood pressure and adrenal activity of adherents, and stress levels in everyone else - thus leading to an alleged public health crisis. But that's some tenuous shit.

[Separatist Peoples]

...Especially with the high likelihood of such an ideology becoming romantic and martyr-intensive now that the big bad government is coming in and telling people their faith itself is illegal. That always ends well.

To seriously answer SP's question, you could possibly make a case that ideologies focused on making people angry tend to harm everyone by increasing the blood pressure and adrenal activity of adherents, and stress levels in everyone else - thus leading to an alleged public health crisis. But that's some tenuous shit.

If an ideology's adherents deliberately engaging in a disturbance of the peace, make Public Nuisance a cause of action. Then hire me to litigate. I know that one's elements really well!


I like BA's rewrite above, but I honestly think that most of #2 could be left to legislation, and not the ruleset. I can't imagine the "All Nations Must Accept Jesus Christ" proposals wouldn't fall afoul of another rule somehow, and laws restricting whether states can compel adherence to a belief to hold office, assembly, or practice a belief, political or philosophical, is a topic best left to authors and not GenSec/Mods.

[Excidium Planetis]

Because it is dangerous and threatens the safety of your citizens?

Say there was a religion which called on its followers to capture and sacrifice unconsenting sapient beings to the great god of fire, and practice arson of Tuesdays. Wouldn't you want to ban that religion?

I might try banning human sacrifices and arson, first. There are alternatives to banning an ideology.

But, as Tinfect, Wallenburg, and Attempted Socialism have all argued, banning those practices is banning the ideology. Banning arson makes practicing that religion impossible without violating the law.

Is there any ideology harmful to citizens that cannot be mitigated by restricting practices rather than the belief system itself?

What is the difference between banning a belief and banning the practices of that belief? How is "You cannot practice Christianity" substantially different from "You cannot worship YHWH or Jesus, cannot pray to any saints, you cannot be baptised, you cannot wear crosses, own or read Bibles of any kind, or preach about salvation from sins"?

...Especially with the high likelihood of such an ideology becoming romantic and martyr-intensive now that the big bad government is coming in and telling people their faith itself is illegal. That always ends well.

And banning all practices of that belief is less anger inducing?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I might try banning human sacrifices and arson, first. There are alternatives to banning an ideology.

But, as Tinfect, Wallenburg, and Attempted Socialism have all argued, banning those practices is banning the ideology. Banning arson makes practicing that religion impossible without violating the law.

Is there any ideology harmful to citizens that cannot be mitigated by restricting practices rather than the belief system itself?

What is the difference between banning a belief and banning the practices of that belief? How is "You cannot practice Christianity" substantially different from "You cannot worship YHWH or Jesus, cannot pray to any saints, you cannot be baptised, you cannot wear crosses, own or read Bibles of any kind, or preach about salvation from sins"?

...Especially with the high likelihood of such an ideology becoming romantic and martyr-intensive now that the big bad government is coming in and telling people their faith itself is illegal. That always ends well.

And banning all practices of that belief is less anger inducing?

The obvious IRL historical parallel here is the Mormons. A ban on polygamy is not a ban on the religion itself. You can still believe that certain harmful practices are virtuous; you're just not allowed to actually do them. The religion itself is not banned, just the harmful practices some of its members happen to carry out.

[Separatist Peoples]

But, as Tinfect, Wallenburg, and Attempted Socialism have all argued, banning those practices is banning the ideology. Banning arson makes practicing that religion impossible without violating the law.

I suppose you could argue that you could ban it and they could still have their religious beliefs. They'd just be in violation of them. Its rather like vaccinating the Amish: they'd still be Amish, but clearly bad ones.

What is the difference between banning a belief and banning the practices of that belief? How is "You cannot practice Christianity" substantially different from "You cannot worship YHWH or Jesus, cannot pray to any saints, you cannot be baptised, you cannot wear crosses, own or read Bibles of any kind, or preach about salvation from sins"?

Stop describing my dream world, I'll drool!

You can't ban what goes on between your ears. I mean, you can try, but its as enforceable as me telling you "Don't see the color blue." One can, theoretically, practice a religion between one's ears without ever wearing a cross, being baptized, or preaching salvation. The difference is one of thought and expression, and it's a very important distinction to my mind.

I also can't help but feel that all of the latter arguments are areas where legislation, rather than rules, should come into play.

And banning all practices of that belief is less anger inducing?

Well, when one involves actual murder...