[DRAFT] Spiritual Freedom Act

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Spiritual Freedom Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The World Assembly:

RECOGNIZING that all people should be free to adhere to whatever private spiritual or religious beliefs they find most fulfilling in their lives;

REALIZING that some nations enact policies of taxation that benefit or subsidize certain favored religious groups over others;

CONVINCED that individuals who do not share a favored religious belief should not be compelled to support a religion they do not accept as true;

BELIEVING that it is an unfair and discriminatory governmental practice to tax individuals to subsidize a favored religion;

HEREBY:

PROHIBITS Member Nations from (a) taxing individuals or organizations differently on the basis of their professed spirituality or religion, or (b) providing disparate tax benefits to individuals or organizations on the basis of their professed spirituality or religion;

REQUIRES that any tax subsidy or benefit intended to promote or benefit a particular religious group be made available to all other religious groups and non-religious charitable groups;

ENCOURAGES Member Nations to provide tax benefits to religious, charitable, and/or spiritually-affiliated groups and individuals in a manner that promotes social well-being;

[Wisconsin9]

Strongly support.

[The God-Realm]

Against

[Separatist Peoples]

Emissary of the God-Realm, forgive me, I am not formally acquainted, but might I inquire as to why you do not support this act?

For the record, the C.D.S.P. tentatively supports this.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Emissary of the God-Realm, forgive me, I am not formally acquainted, but might I inquire as to why you do not support this act?

I'm gonna say that most of the folks who disagree with this will do so on the grounds that their nation has some national religion and they don't want to provide equal tax treatment to religious minorities.

Of course, they won't say it like I just did, because that sounds like a pretty awful justification.

[The God-Realm]

Emissary of the God-Realm, forgive me, I am not formally acquainted, but might I inquire as to why you do not support this act?

For the record, the C.D.S.P. tentatively supports this.

Oryx, may he reign for super-eons, does not allow the worship of other gods other than Oryx, may he reign for super-eons.
~Cake, Emissary to the WA.

[Auralia]

Could the second clause be changed to:

REQUIRES that any tax subsidy or benefit intended to promote or benefit a particular religious group be made available to all other religious groups;

[Separatist Peoples]

Emissary of the God-Realm, forgive me, I am not formally acquainted, but might I inquire as to why you do not support this act?

For the record, the C.D.S.P. tentatively supports this.

Oryx, may he reign for super-eons, does not allow the worship of other gods other than Oryx, may he reign for super-eons.
~Cake, Emissary to the WA.

As a member of the W.A., is that not in conflict with GAR #30, Freedom of Expression?
Besides, this doesn't keep theocracies to fail, simply keeps them from levying discriminatory taxes against those of differing beliefs.

Cowardly Pacifists » 25 Jul 2012, 19:24

I'm gonna say that most of the folks who disagree with this will do so on the grounds that their nation has some national religion and they don't want to provide equal tax treatment to religious minorities.

Of course, they won't say it like I just did, because that sounds like a pretty awful justification.

OOC: I know. I was hoping to encourage the player to offer a more comprehensive response.

[Wisconsin9]

Emissary of the God-Realm, forgive me, I am not formally acquainted, but might I inquire as to why you do not support this act?

For the record, the C.D.S.P. tentatively supports this.

Oryx, may he reign for super-eons, does not allow the worship of other gods other than Oryx, may he reign for super-eons.
~Cake, Emissary to the WA.

It stands to reason that only legal religions will pay taxes. Since there is (I am assuming) no tax on religions that legally do not exist, it would not grant treatment to other religions.

[The God-Realm]

Oryx, may he reign for super-eons, does not allow the worship of other gods other than Oryx, may he reign for super-eons.
~Cake, Emissary to the WA.

As a member of the W.A., is that not in conflict with GAR #30, Freedom of Expression?
Besides, this doesn't keep theocracies to fail, simply keeps them from levying discriminatory taxes against those of differing beliefs.

Cowardly Pacifists » 25 Jul 2012, 19:24

I'm gonna say that most of the folks who disagree with this will do so on the grounds that their nation has some national religion and they don't want to provide equal tax treatment to religious minorities.

Of course, they won't say it like I just did, because that sounds like a pretty awful justification.

OOC: I know. I was hoping to encourage the player to offer a more comprehensive response.

No, because Oryx is a benevolent god and allows homage to other gods, but not worship.
~Cake, Emissary to the WA, and secret Haruhiist

[Separatist Peoples]

It stands to reason that only legal religions will pay taxes. Since there is (I am assuming) no tax on religions that legally do not exist, it would not grant treatment to other religions.

By that logic, no nation could possibly tax any religion that is not scientifically proven. Using the logic that one religion or another is correct and the others are not is not grounds for an argument in these hallowed halls of political mudslinging. We do have standards .

Also, is homage not, essentially, worship, Ambassador of the God-Realm? Your policies seem to be in violation the kinds of WA resolutions that have been passed...

[The God-Realm]

It stands to reason that only legal religions will pay taxes. Since there is (I am assuming) no tax on religions that legally do not exist, it would not grant treatment to other religions.

By that logic, no nation could possibly tax any religion that is not scientifically proven. Using the logic that one religion or another is correct and the others are not is not grounds for an argument in these hallowed halls of political mudslinging. We do have standards .

Also, is homage not, essentially, worship, Ambassador of the God-Realm? Your policies seem to be in violation the kinds of WA resolutions that have been passed...

Um.... Not legally, as homage=respect in our nation, and Worship=Total devotion to something. Most humans, for example, worship defense potions and rebel often to get them.
~Cake, Emissary to the WA and stat potion hoarder

[Abatael]

It stands to reason that only legal religions will pay taxes. Since there is (I am assuming) no tax on religions that legally do not exist, it would not grant treatment to other religions.

By that logic, no nation could possibly tax any religion that is not scientifically proven. Using the logic that one religion or another is correct and the others are not is not grounds for an argument in these hallowed halls of political mudslinging. We do have standards .

Also, is homage not, essentially, worship, Ambassador of the God-Realm? Your policies seem to be in violation the kinds of WA resolutions that have been passed...

OoC: There are some nations that do have scientifically proven religions.

[Radiatia]

Kurt Demodand, Radiatia's representative to the WA rises.

"I have a question. Would this resolution prohibit taxation per se on religion?

"For example in the Radiatian Federation all religious groups are taxed at 30%, due to us recognising that they are businesses and the sort of businesses that we would prefer to discourage, might I add, given that they feed off the desperate members of society.

"My second question is that would a nation like Radiatia, which bans certain religious groups such as those which preach discrimination and those which attempt to contradict scientific fact, be bound to start allowing groups like Scientologists and Pentecostal Christians start operating in our nation?

"As it stands I am opposing this resolution. But your answer will determine the vehemence with which I oppose this - whether I simply choose to vote against it, or whether I rip up the document and burn things while voting against it."

[Separatist Peoples]

Um.... Not legally, as homage=respect in our nation, and Worship=Total devotion to something. Most humans, for example, worship defense potions and rebel often to get them.
~Cake, Emissary to the WA and stat potion hoarder

Apologies. However I would like to direct your attention to GAR#35 (I've been gone too long if I didn't remember this little gem!)

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

Just a small bit of it.

[Christian Democrats]

Would this proposal allow member states not to tax or to impose lower taxes on religious organizations while taxing similar nonreligious organizations at higher rates? If so, could you clarify this in the proposal?

[Kakistopolis]

Opposed.

Though not a member of the World Assembly (an organization listed on the Kakistopolitan State Department List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations), we must remind that our national religion's central tenet posits that nations can improve themselves by violently reducing the number of other nations to compare with, and that our licensed lethal force providers are charged with this sacred mission.

The wording of this Act would also seem to outlaw theocracies from funding a military.

[The Republic of Lanos]

Could we still recognize religions under this? We have a feeling Scientology could use this against us.

[Auralia]

Would this proposal allow member states not to tax or to impose lower taxes on religious organizations while taxing similar nonreligious organizations at higher rates? If so, could you clarify this in the proposal?

I don't believe so, which is why I recommended changing the second clause.

[Separatist Peoples]

Could we still recognize religions under this? We have a feeling Scientology could use this against us.

Provided the same tax laws are laid down, it doesn't look that way, esteemed Ambassador, though I could be mistaken.

[Abatael]

In Venolia, there is no god, but God; hence meaning no religion exists, with the exclusion of Christianity.

[Aquavina]

strongly support as long as certain regulations are in place to assure that relegious organizations are practicing in a lawful manner and be a postive contributor and influence to society.

[Christian Democrats]

REQUIRES that any . . . benefit intended to promote or benefit a particular religious group be made available to all other religious groups and non-religious charitable groups

Would this limit the ability of my country to fund the Catholic Church?

In my country, Catholicism is the state religion. The population is about 98 percent Catholic. About 27 percent of current government expenditures are allocated to the Catholic Church and Catholic organizations. In other words, about 19 percent of our GDP is dedicated to Catholicism. Ten percent of GDP goes to the Catholic Church itself (cf. tithe). Nine percent of GDP goes toward funding for Catholic organizations. These are mostly charitable organizations that provide services to the poor and so forth.

Who Receives Funding	Percentage of Government Expenditures	Percentage of GDP
Catholic Church	14%	10%
Catholic Organizations	13%	9%

The education budget, which includes Catholic religious education, is separate and constitutes 18 percent of current government expenditures, or 13 percent of GDP.

In my country, secular welfare constitutes only one percent of government expenditures. This one percent is government unemployment insurance, or benefits for the unemployed. The national unemployment rate is currently 2.84 percent. This is the reason that unemployment benefits constitute a minute portion of the government budget.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I didn't expect so much interest in this. Obviously there's some work that needs to be done before this is even ready for a substantive debate. I'll take the time to respond to specific concerns later, as it's kinda late on my end.

Best Regards.

[Dagguerro]

In principle we don't see a huge problem with this and could tentatively support such a measure.

- Lord Swift