[DEFEATED] Freedom of Religion

[Araraukar]

OOC: By the way, whatever happened to "Banishment Ban"?

The same thing that happened to all the other proposals I've drafted: No-one bothered to comment on it so now it's gathering cobwebs. I'll revive it eventually.

OOC: I know I owe you replies on various drafts of yours, but this time of the year is... urgh, finding enough time to properly concentrate on NS is difficult.

[Kitzerland]

*snip

I...genuinely cannot understand what it is you're trying to argue. Could you please rephrase that?

Sorry, that was a bit long winded and ranting.Honestly, I was a bit confused myself. Effectively, Whiskers is saying that a government could discriminate against religious groups by passing laws that prevent them from exercising their religious freedom without directly addressing them.

[Aclion]

I...genuinely cannot understand what it is you're trying to argue. Could you please rephrase that?

Sorry, that was a bit long winded and ranting.Honestly, I was a bit confused myself. Effectively, Whiskers is saying that a government could discriminate against religious groups by passing laws that prevent them from exercising their religious freedom without directly addressing them.

I think clause six is the one that deals with that.

[Bakhton]

"Our court reaffirms its approval of this proposal as written currently. Three of our justices have also bemoaned the fact that it's taken so long to address this issue."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Barbera: Are there any other comments?

[Kitzerland]

Sorry, that was a bit long winded and ranting.Honestly, I was a bit confused myself. Effectively, Whiskers is saying that a government could discriminate against religious groups by passing laws that prevent them from exercising their religious freedom without directly addressing them.

I think clause six is the one that deals with that.

Well, no, it doesn't. There are still plenty of workarounds.

[Bakhton]

"Out of all the drafts you've unearthed recently, I'd say this is the most important."

[Kitzerland]

"Out of all the drafts you've unearthed recently, I'd say this is the most important."

Really? I like BanBan.

[Bakhton]

"Out of all the drafts you've unearthed recently, I'd say this is the most important."

Really? I like BanBan.

"We support BanBan as well. It's just this seems like the most necessary out of all of them."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Barbera: There have been recent concerns regarding freedom of religion in relation to animal cruelty. We hope that this draft may present a solution, or at the very least a compromise.

[Bananaistan]

"Why the inconsistent usage of the word "individual" and the phrase "sapient being"? Surely, in line with WA precedent since the dawn of time, individual is the more appropriate word?

"Clause 3 is a travesty. There is absolutely no need to define the word in question.

"Clause 8 is somewhat objectionable. Member nations might have a reasonable interest in not allowing committed theists hold important scientific positions where superstitious belief in the supernatural may well be a barrier to advancing that nation's scientific understanding of the physical universe.

"Of course we remain opposed in line with our official atheist state policy as we feel religious beliefs and superstitions are the single greatest barrier to the advancement of the human race."

- Ted Hornwood
Special Attache from the Office of the President of the People's Republic of Bananaistan, and the General Secretary and Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communism, It's A Party! party to the Mission of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly in respect of matters we deem to be too important to be left to Comrade Brian to deal with.

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Why the inconsistent usage of the word "individual" and the phrase "sapient being"? Surely, in line with WA precedent since the dawn of time, individual is the more appropriate word?"

Barbera: That would be the fault of my predecessors. I shall rectify that forthwith.

"Clause 3 is a travesty. There is absolutely no need to define the word in question."

Barbera: On the contrary, the fact that over half of the debate has centered on that one word is cause for defining it in the text.

"Clause 8 is somewhat objectionable. Member nations might have a reasonable interest in not allowing committed theists hold important scientific positions where superstitious belief in the supernatural may well be a barrier to advancing that nation's scientific understanding of the physical universe."

Barbera: There is a difference between holding a belief and acting on that belief.

"Of course we remain opposed in line with our official atheist state policy as we feel religious beliefs and superstitions are the single greatest barrier to the advancement of the human race."

Barbera: You are aware that there are various other species aside from humans, right, Ted Hornwood, Special Attaché from the Office of the President of the People's Republic of Bananaistan, and the General Secretary and Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communism, It's A Party! party to the Mission of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly in respect of matters we deem to be too important to be left to Comrade Brian to deal with?

Harold: What's with all the long titles? You know what? From now on, I am King Sir Lord Duke Viscount Harold Clowny McClownface Johnson PhD GBE MBBS MD DO Esquire Junior.

[Bakhton]

"Of course we remain opposed in line with our official atheist state policy as we feel religious beliefs and superstitions are the single greatest barrier to the advancement of the human race."

Lara and Jeffrey have been doing very little for the last several weeks besides scheming and paperwork. Jeffrey raises an eyebrow at the ambassador's comment being a dedicated member of the Bakhtonian anarcho-syndicalist party. He opes his mouth to protest the misdirection of blame from the true enemy, the state, butLara puts a hand on his shoulder, "Don't get partisan, Jeffrey."
Jeffrey slinks back into his seat and picks back up Statism and Anarchy by Bakunin.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Are there any other comments or should we finally submit the damn thing?

King Sir Lord Duke Viscount Harold Clowny McClownface Johnson PhD GBE MBBS MD DO Esquire Junior: Careful, Ambassador Unfairburn. You don't want to commit blasphemy.

Fairburn: 'Unfair burn' perfectly describes your petty nicknames...

King Sir Lord Duke Viscount Harold Clowny McClownface Johnson PhD GBE MBBS MD DO Esquire Junior: Pot, meet kettle.

Fairburn: ...and thankfully, the WA does not prohibit blasphemy.

[Draconae]

Fairburn: Are there any other comments or should we finally submit the damn thing?

King Sir Lord Duke Viscount Harold Clowny McClownface Johnson PhD GBE MBBS MD DO Esquire Junior: Careful, Ambassador Unfairburn. You don't want to commit blasphemy.

Fairburn: 'Unfair burn' perfectly describes your petty nicknames...

King Sir Lord Duke Viscount Harold Clowny McClownface Johnson PhD GBE MBBS MD DO Esquire Junior: Pot, meet kettle.

Fairburn: ...and thankfully, the WA does not prohibit blasphemy.

"I do not believe I have any more comments. Submit it!"

[Akirya]

"Akirya is against this propolsal , and we will uphold our right to deal how ever we want with any religious group if we see it as a threat. If any religious fanatics dissagree, well they can always move away from out glorious country"

[Excidium Planetis]

Barbera: On the contrary, the fact that over half of the debate has centered on that one word is cause for defining it in the text.

"Missus Warner, I assure you," Blackbourne protests, "not a single word of debate has centered around that word. We all know what a request is."

[Whovian Tardisia]

DECLARES that member states have the right to establish an official religion, so long as they do not discriminate against individuals holding other religious beliefs or holding no religion religious belief in doing so,

"Aside from the indicated grammar error, we support this resolution. It is necessary for one's religion, or lack thereof, to be respected in this increasingly diverse multiverse of ours."

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Akirya is against this propolsal , and we will uphold our right to deal how ever we want with any religious group if we see it as a threat. If any religious fanatics dissagree, well they can always move away from out glorious country"

Fairburn: You are more than free to crack down on religiously motivated violence, but holding all followers of a religion accountable for the actions of the minority, or even the majority, is a blatant violation of the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Barbera: On the contrary, the fact that over half of the debate has centered on that one word is cause for defining it in the text.

"Missus Warner, I assure you," Blackbourne protests, "not a single word of debate has centered around that word. We all know what a request is."

Barbera: I would hesitate to use the word 'all' in this context.

King Sir Lord Duke Viscount Harold Clowny McClownface Johnson PhD GBE MBBS MD DO Esquire Junior: Welp, it's official. If the Excidians are going to maintain that they haven't at all wasted our time with petty pedantry then I have no choice. (lobs cream pie in Blackbourne's direction)

DECLARES that member states have the right to establish an official religion, so long as they do not discriminate against individuals holding other religious beliefs or holding no religion religious belief in doing so,

"Aside from the indicated grammar error, we support this resolution. It is necessary for one's religion, or lack thereof, to be respected in this increasingly diverse multiverse of ours."

Fairburn: Now how did that get there?

King Sir Lord Duke Viscount Harold Clowny McClownface Johnson PhD GBE MBBS MD DO Esquire Junior: Must have been lost in the transition.

Fairburn: (glares at Harold)

King Sir Lord Duke Viscount Harold Clowny McClownface Johnson PhD GBE MBBS MD DO Esquire Junior: (looks around nervously) Um...want some gum? (holds out packet of shocking gum)

Fairburn: Unlike you, I'm not a fool. I know a prank when I see one.

[Draconae]

Ambassador Valorus scowls and speaks: "The delegation from States of Glory (with the exception of Clause Three) has done an excellent job drafting this resolution. We believe they should submit it after a revision of Clause Three or even immediately."

[Araraukar]

OOC: SoG asked me to comment on this, and rather than write a long, going-off-into-tangents TG, I figured I might as well write a long, going-off-into-tangents forum post. More ways to edit the text here anyway.

In TGs we briefly exchanged opinions of whether the order of clauses 6 and 7 should be inverted, and confusion arose on both sides, I think, so picking up from there...

This is why I've suggested before to combine them.

Something to the effect of religious rituals not being allowed to break international law, but allowed to break national as long as the following restrictions apply.

However... While turning the exceptions into restrictions doesn't change how restrictive or exceptive (probably not a word, but it rhymes) they are, it would 1) make it clearer that you're wanting to let religions¹ break national laws in the name of religious rituals, and 2) that you are, despite all protestations to the contrary, placing people with religious beliefs into a more privileged category, to whom all the national laws don't apply to equally, which breaks Article 1. a of CoCR, as its wording does not make any excuses for being equal in international law but not in national. There's no way you can spin this in a way that it wouldn't break that clause. (And possibly clause 1 of GA #374, but you'll have to ask about that from someone who's more awake than me.)

**********
Warning: anything below this will likely involve some mocking of religious justifications and turns of phrase. These are not intended to directly mock anyone's religion, but they'll probably take swipes at Xtianity, since that's what I was raised into in RL and thus it's the religion I know best. The examples themselves are still valid and not meant as direct mockery.
**********

¹Or worse yet, let individuals break national laws in the name of religion that we basically only have their word on that they follow it... actually, how would the breaking of national laws being excempted for religious practices be verifiable upon the time that someone breaks the laws and the cops come arrest them? Would having a cross pendant around your neck prove you Christian (to use an existing religion with easily recognizable icons)? Would you need to know the Bible by heart? Or would you need to actually be registered somewhere as belonging to the church? Or does the "allowed to break laws within these restrictions" only become a "getting free out of jail" card as a defence in criminal court? And what about civil courts?

Let's say that jaywalking is a criminal offence. Small one, yes, but it still counts and is finable and you get a criminal record mention. Now, some religious ritual that Individual A adheres to because of her religious belief, requires her to, at noon, to spin around five times and take ten steps with her eyes closed. (Probably explained as something about divine guidance...)

So, following this religious ritual one day causes her to jaywalk into heavy traffic, and as the drivers of cars try to avoid hitting her (because vehicular manslaughters is a worse crime than jaywalking), they crahs into one another, with damages to the cars and lots of startled/shocked motorists, but no serious injuries (we can assume it's a low speedlimit area for the purposes of this example).

Now, criminally Individual A can be charged for jaywalking, but as that isn't part of her religious ritual (which is just about taking steps under divine guidance, not about walking into traffic to see what happens), does she get to claim that she was just following her religious ritual and thus shouldn't be held responsible for breaking the laws of the nation? Or could she be charged for jaywalking exactly because it isn't part of the ritual? Basically intended result versus actual result.

The motorists whose cars were damaged, could normally claim compensation from her via civil courts, since her walking into the traffic was the cause for why the crashes happened. But can they now, since her doing that was due to her following a religious ritual? She certainly didn't intend to cause damage to either other people's possessions or injuries to them, those were all secondary results caused by her blindly (no pun intended) following the ritual that is part of the religion she was born into. Intention against what actually happened, again.

A more direct example, Individual B (I swear the letter B is not a reference to Mr. Bell) is part of a cult where you hail every sunrise by firing bullets in the direction of the rising sun (or the sun at noon, if it's a particularly suicidal cult). Individual B does so, and accidentally (again, not part of the ritual's intended result) kills someone. He has immigrated from another nation, but is now a citizen of his current nation. His current nation has laws against shooting guns anywhere but at supervised areas (exactly to prevent accidents like what Individual B just did), but as it's part of his religious ritual, would the nation have to allow him to shoot it at the sun where ever he happens to be at the right time? And what about the accidental manslaughter (with unlawful killings being criminal offences)? Again, certainly not the intended result of the ritual, but results from the ritual in any case.

And what about weapon ownership in general? Not just guns, but also daggers and swords. (I think the Sikh are allowed to take their daggers just about everywhere except possibly airplanes.) But should a nation have to let someone have an automatic assault rifle with life ammunition, while otherwise civil ownership of any kinds of guns is banned, if the gun ownership was part of their religion (as it almost seems to be in the USA)? With probably a holy book verse saying something like "Should any hand reach unto thy bosom to steal or destroy thy gun, thou shalt verily shoot them to shreds with thy gun and be assured of eternal happiness in the bullet heaven after the casting aside of thy mortal body". If the police try to take their gun away as part of a normal arrest (let's say, for the sake of coherence, what little I have left, that they jaywalked in the same nation where Individual A walks around in), is the person allowed to shoot at them or keep their gun?

Should I have spoilered all this? Possibly. Am I going to? No, because it's on topic, hard as it may be to believe.

[States of Glory WA Office]

All OOC.

Something to the effect of religious rituals not being allowed to break international law, but allowed to break national as long as the following restrictions apply.

The fact that people still fundamentally misunderstand the nature of a request/recommendation worries me. Since I'm apparently still not clear enough on this:

THERE IS NO COMPULSION ON MEMBER STATES TO ALLOW RELIGIOUS RITUALS THAT BREAK NATIONAL LAWS. MEMBER STATES MAY CHOOSE, AT THEIR DISCRETION AND AT THEIR OWN RISK, TO ALLOW RELIGIOUS RITUALS THAT OTHERWISE BREAK NATIONAL LAWS.
MEMBER STATES CAN DO THIS WITHOUT THE PROPOSAL ANYWAY, BUT THE PROPOSAL RECOMMENDS (AND I MEAN RECOMMENDS) THAT MEMBER STATES GIVE RITUALS A PASS IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THEY AFFECT NO-ONE ELSE.

If someone is still unclear on this then they may TG me on this matter because I'm not discussing this issue in this thread hereafter.

1) make it clearer that you're wanting to let religions¹ break national laws in the name of religious rituals

See above.

2) that you are, despite all protestations to the contrary, placing people with religious beliefs into a more privileged category, to whom all the national laws don't apply to equally, which breaks Article 1. a of CoCR, as its wording does not make any excuses for being equal in international law but not in national. There's no way you can spin this in a way that it wouldn't break that clause. (And possibly clause 1 of GA #374, but you'll have to ask about that from someone who's more awake than me.)

Once again, see above.

Now, criminally Individual A can be charged for jaywalking, but as that isn't part of her religious ritual (which is just about taking steps under divine guidance, not about walking into traffic to see what happens), does she get to claim that she was just following her religious ritual and thus shouldn't be held responsible for breaking the laws of the nation? Or could she be charged for jaywalking exactly because it isn't part of the ritual? Basically intended result versus actual result.

Clause 7(a) covers harm to other individuals and Clause 7(c) covers property damage, so even if you argue that a request is somehow mandatory, member states are allowed to, and indeed should, criminalise such reckless actions as long as the law is applied equally regardless of religion. If the law is enforced only on members of a certain religion or religious people in general then it is in violation of Clause Six and Clause Eight. If the law is enforced only on non-religious people then it is in violation of Clause Eight and possibly Clause Five.

A more direct example, Individual B (I swear the letter B is not a reference to Mr. Bell) is part of a cult where you hail every sunrise by firing bullets in the direction of the rising sun (or the sun at noon, if it's a particularly suicidal cult). Individual B does so, and accidentally (again, not part of the ritual's intended result) kills someone. He has immigrated from another nation, but is now a citizen of his current nation. His current nation has laws against shooting guns anywhere but at supervised areas (exactly to prevent accidents like what Individual B just did), but as it's part of his religious ritual, would the nation have to allow him to shoot it at the sun where ever he happens to be at the right time? And what about the accidental manslaughter (with unlawful killings being criminal offences)? Again, certainly not the intended result of the ritual, but results from the ritual in any case.

Same as your first example. The mere act of shooting at the Sun may not be illegal (throwing a punch isn't illegal until your fist meets someone else's face) but if it injures or kills someone then member states are allowed to press charges based on Clause 7(a) and the fact that Clause Seven is completely optional anyway.

And what about weapon ownership in general? Not just guns, but also daggers and swords. (I think the Sikh are allowed to take their daggers just about everywhere except possibly airplanes.) But should a nation have to let someone have an automatic assault rifle with life ammunition, while otherwise civil ownership of any kinds of guns is banned, if the gun ownership was part of their religion (as it almost seems to be in the USA)? With probably a holy book verse saying something like "Should any hand reach unto thy bosom to steal or destroy thy gun, thou shalt verily shoot them to shreds with thy gun and be assured of eternal happiness in the bullet heaven after the casting aside of thy mortal body". If the police try to take their gun away as part of a normal arrest (let's say, for the sake of coherence, what little I have left, that they jaywalked in the same nation where Individual A walks around in), is the person allowed to shoot at them or keep their gun?

Once again, this does not allow people to shoot other individuals based on their religious belief. Your point on gun ownership, while an interesting philosophical debate on reasonable accommodation, is rendered moot by Clause Seven's optionality.

That was actually the intent of Clause Seven. If someone wishes to carry a weapon or wear a particular item of clothing then as long as they're not causing damage to other people or to other people's property, I do not believe that member states have any business telling them what they can or can't do. However, some ultra-secular nations (such as RL France) would insist that religious folk follow the same laws as everyone else, hence the optionality.

[Kalata]

oh hi. religion r enterestin frum an anthropologicel perspectif. we dont however think that it r sumfin necesary fr anyone to haz dah fhyeedum 4. 13 bilion yeerz for lokin fr soopernaturel beingz haz onle reele showed that they don't exist; an ther iz also reel benefitz fr enstitutionel stabilitie to haz religiousle homogeneouz populashun.

[Araraukar]

The fact that people still fundamentally misunderstand the nature of a request/recommendation worries me.

OOC: It's not a misunderstanding, because that's still an active clause and if it contradicts an existing resolution, it still makes the proposal illegal. You literally define request as a recommendation and then use it as an active clause. Just because it's mild strength language doesn't mean it wasn't an active clause. If you honestly are going to refuse addressing the issue in this thread, do you want me make the legality challenge or make it yourself?

Clause 7(a) covers harm to other individuals and Clause 7(c) covers property damage
*snip*
Same as your first example.

But in the examples the ritual itself does not cause either. It's the unintended consequences of performing the ritual, that do.

Clause Seven is completely optional anyway.
*snip*
is rendered moot by Clause Seven's optionality.

But it's not. That's the whole point with mild strength active clauses; a nation cannot avoid being urged or recommended or encouraged or suggested to do something. That's why they count as active clauses!

I do not believe that member states have any business telling them what they can or can't do.

Funny how so many religions do just that...

---

*snip*

OOC: It highly amuses me that someone's made a cat nation that butchers the language even further than the Chief Inshpekshuuner...

[Bears Armed]

However... While turning the exceptions into restrictions doesn't change how restrictive or exceptive (probably not a word, but it rhymes) they are, it would 1) make it clearer that you're wanting to let religions¹ break national laws in the name of religious rituals, and 2) that you are, despite all protestations to the contrary, placing people with religious beliefs into a more privileged category, to whom all the national laws don't apply to equally, which breaks Article 1. a of CoCR, as its wording does not make any excuses for being equal in international law but not in national. There's no way you can spin this in a way that it wouldn't break that clause.

OOC
Precedent says that respecting people's beliefs can be interpreted as a 'compelling practical purpose' for allowing those exemptions only to members of the religions concerned rather than to everybody within those nations, as long as such exemptions are open [as appropriate] to everybody who holds religious beliefs rather than just to members of some particular faiths or to people who were already members of the faiths by some particular date.
Relevant Ruling.