[DRAFT] Ending Religious Persecution

[States of Glory WA Office]

Ending Religious Persecution
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

NOTING that religion dominates public life in numerous member states, especially in those that utilise theocratic forms of government,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there is an established precedent in international law that individuals have a right not be persecuted based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof,

BELIEVING that the aforementioned right should extend to not being forced to partake in religious rituals or festivals without a valid secular reason,

COGNIZANT of the need to respect the unique cultural sensitivities of nations where religion plays an important role in everyday life,

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,
   
   
2. DEFINES a religious ritual, for the purposes of this resolution, as an act that is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,
   
   
3. DEFINES a religious festival, for the purposes of this resolution, as a time of importance that is celebrated routinely on the basis that such a celebration is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,
   
   
4. REQUIRES member states to respect an individual's right both to hold and not to hold a religious belief,
   
   
5. PROHIBITS member states from compelling individuals to perform a particular religious ritual or to celebrate a particular religious festival unless doing so serves a separate, reasonable and compelling secular purpose,
   
   
6. AFFIRMS the right of member states to mandate religious education in state-run educational centres as long as such education is not used as a vehicle to promote, endorse or degrade religious beliefs or a lack of religious belief,
   
   
7. AFFIRMS the right of member states to designate religious festivals as national holidays,
   
   
8. AFFIRMS the right of member states to establish an official religion, so long as the mandates of this resolution and of prior unrepealed resolutions are followed.

Fairburn: Consider this one part of a two-parter.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Freedom From Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong

The World Assembly,

NOTING the large number of member states in which religion dominates public life,

CONCERNED that non-religious individuals may be pressured to join a particular religion or face persecution,

BELIEVING that freedom of religion necessarily requires freedom from religion,

WISHING therefore to put an end to these injustices,

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,
   
   
2. DEFINES a religious ritual, for the purposes of this resolution, as an act that is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,
   
   
3. DEFINES a religious festival, for the purposes of this resolution, as a time of importance that is celebrated routinely by those who hold a particular religious belief,
   
   
4. DECLARES that for the purposes of present and future international legislation and of causing massive headaches, politely begging member states to take action shall be considered equivalent to requiring them to take action,
   
   
5. POLITELY BEGS member states to respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,
   
   
6. POLITELY BEGS member states to refrain from forcing individuals to perform a particular religious ritual or to celebrate a particular religious festival,
   
   
7. POLITELY BEGS member states not to discriminate against individuals purely on the basis of their lack of religious belief without a reasonable and compelling justification that abides by the spirit of this resolution,
   
   
8. AFFIRMS the right of member states to mandate religious education in state-run educational centres as long as such education is not used as a vehicle to promote, endorse or degrade religious beliefs or lack of religious belief,
   
   
9. AFFIRMS the right of member states to designate religious festivals as national holidays,
   
   
10. AFFIRMS the right of member states to establish an official religion, so long as the mandates of this resolution and prior unrepealed legislation are followed.

Freedom From Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong

The World Assembly,

NOTING the large number of member states in which religion dominates public life,

BELIEVING that freedom of religion necessarily requires freedom from religion,

CONCERNED that non-religious individuals may be pressured to join a particular religion or face persecution,

WISHING to put an end to these injustices,

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,
   
   
2. DEFINES a religious ritual, for the purposes of this resolution, as an act that is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,
   
   
3. DEFINES a religious festival, for the purposes of this resolution, as a time of importance that is celebrated routinely by those individuals who hold a particular religious belief,
   
   
4. DECLARES that for the purposes of present and future international legislation and of causing massive headaches, politely begging member states to take action shall be considered equivalent to requiring them to take action,
   
   
5. POLITELY BEGS member states to respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,
   
   
6. POLITELY BEGS member states to refrain from forcing individuals to perform a particular religious ritual or to celebrate a particular religious festival unless doing so serves a separate, reasonable and compelling secular purpose,
   
   
7. POLITELY BEGS member states not to discriminate against individuals purely on the basis of their lack of religious belief without a reasonable and compelling justification that abides by the principles laid out in the preamble and by prior unrepealed legislation,
   
   
8. AFFIRMS the right of member states to mandate religious education in state-run educational centres as long as such education is not used as a vehicle to promote, endorse or degrade religious beliefs or a lack of religious belief,
   
   
9. AFFIRMS the right of member states to designate religious festivals as national holidays,
   
   
10. AFFIRMS the right of member states to establish an official religion, so long as the mandates of this resolution and prior unrepealed legislation are followed.

Ending Religious Persecution
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong

The World Assembly,

NOTING the large number of member states in which religion dominates public life,

BELIEVING that freedom of religion necessarily requires freedom from religion,

CONCERNED that non-religious individuals may be pressured to join a particular religion or face persecution,

WISHING to put an end to these injustices,

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,
   
   
2. DEFINES a religious ritual, for the purposes of this resolution, as an act that is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,
   
   
3. DEFINES a religious festival, for the purposes of this resolution, as a time of importance that is celebrated routinely on the basis that such a celebration is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,
   
   
4. DECLARES that for the purposes of present and future international legislation and of causing massive headaches, politely begging member states to take action shall be considered equivalent to requiring them to take action,
   
   
5. POLITELY BEGS member states to respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,
   
   
6. POLITELY BEGS member states to refrain from forcing individuals to perform a particular religious ritual or to celebrate a particular religious festival unless doing so serves a separate, reasonable and compelling secular purpose,
   
   
7. POLITELY BEGS member states not to discriminate against individuals purely on the basis of their lack of religious belief without a reasonable and compelling justification that abides by the principles laid out in the preamble and by prior unrepealed legislation,
   
   
8. AFFIRMS the right of member states to mandate religious education in state-run educational centres as long as such education is not used as a vehicle to promote, endorse or degrade religious beliefs or a lack of religious belief,
   
   
9. AFFIRMS the right of member states to designate religious festivals as national holidays,
   
   
10. AFFIRMS the right of member states to establish an official religion, so long as the mandates of this resolution and prior unrepealed legislation are followed.

Ending Religious Persecution
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING the numerous member states in which religion dominates public life,

BELIEVING that freedom of religion necessarily requires freedom from religion,

CONCERNED that non-religious individuals may be pressured to join a particular religion or face persecution,

WISHING to put an end to these injustices,

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,
   
   
2. DEFINES a religious ritual, for the purposes of this resolution, as an act that is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,
   
   
3. DEFINES a religious festival, for the purposes of this resolution, as a time of importance that is celebrated routinely on the basis that such a celebration is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,
   
   
4. REQUIRES member states to respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,
   
   
5. MANDATES that member states refrain from forcing individuals to perform a particular religious ritual or to celebrate a particular religious festival unless doing so serves a separate, reasonable and compelling secular purpose,
   
   
6. PROHIBITS member states from discriminating against individuals purely on the basis of a lack of religious belief without a reasonable and compelling justification that abides by prior unrepealed World Assembly legislation,
   
   
7. AFFIRMS the right of member states to mandate religious education in state-run educational centres as long as such education is not used as a vehicle to promote, endorse or degrade religious beliefs or a lack of religious belief,
   
   
8. AFFIRMS the right of member states to designate religious festivals as national holidays,
   
   
9. AFFIRMS the right of member states to establish an official religion, so long as the mandates of this resolution and of prior unrepealed resolutions are followed.

[Wealthatonia]

don't we already have one of these?

[States of Glory WA Office]

don't we already have one of these?

Fairburn: Where does this proposal already exist?

[Bakhton]

don't we already have one of these?

"Actually no, but States of Glory WA Offices is working on a draft that's much better, that is of course, if they ever submit it." Ambassador Qzu crosses her arms passive aggressively, "We can only stand in support so many times. Our knees are getting arthritis, Ambassador!"

[States of Glory WA Office]

don't we already have one of these?

"Actually no, but States of Glory WA Offices is working on a draft that's much better, that is of course, if they ever submit it." Ambassador Qzu crosses her arms passive aggressively, "We can only stand in support so many times. Our knees are getting arthritis, Ambassador!"

Fairburn: (chuckles) You are new here, aren't you? Don't you know? If we ever submit this then someone will point out a fatal flaw that wasn't pointed out before submission and then we'd be forced to write a repeal of our own resolution! Do you really want that on your conscience?

[Wallenburg]

"Why is it necessary to separate this from 'Freedom of Religion'?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Why is it necessary to separate this from 'Freedom of Religion'?"

Possibly this

Before anyone complains, 'beg' is a synonym of 'urge' which is a synonym of 'compel' which is a synonym of 'oblige' which is a synonym of 'obligate'. You know what else is a synonym of 'obligate'?
Require. Therefore, to beg is to require. Q.E.D.

If that is its purpose, I find it a crude way to make a point, to paraphrase Louisistan, and also one of the best jokes that SoG has made this month, possibly longer.

[Wallenburg]

"Why is it necessary to separate this from 'Freedom of Religion'?"

Possibly this

Before anyone complains, 'beg' is a synonym of 'urge' which is a synonym of 'compel' which is a synonym of 'oblige' which is a synonym of 'obligate'. You know what else is a synonym of 'obligate'?
Require. Therefore, to beg is to require. Q.E.D.

If that is its purpose, I find it crude and one of the best jokes that SoG has made this month, possibly longer.

OOC:
1) I was speaking IC, not OOC.
2) Hmm. That is mildly funny, I'll give you that, but I'd still say that they are Better Together.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC:
1) I was speaking IC, not OOC.
2) Hmm. That is mildly funny, I'll give you that, but I'd still say that they are Better Together.

They are Better Together. Passing an omnibus bill on the question would be preferable to passing a bill on one topic and running any risk of the other one not passing as well.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "Supported, supported, supported."

Ra'lingth: "Hassstur, Hassstur, Hassstur."

Teran Saber: "Really, Ra'lingth? You're a follower of the Yellow King? I thought you were better than that."

Ra'lingth: "No, jussst wanted to make a joke about it."

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Why is it necessary to separate this from 'Freedom of Religion'?"

Fairburn: It seems logical to separate the freedom to hold a religious belief from the freedom not to hold a religious belief. In any case, I can address both topics in more detail this way. The more streamlined, the better. Besides, Ambassadors have in the past submitted different but thematically linked proposals as part of a wider two-front strategy.

OOC: Also, Ara wanted me to write a proposal on preventing religious individuals from forcing their beliefs onto other people and I'm a man of my word, so there's that.

"Why is it necessary to separate this from 'Freedom of Religion'?"

Possibly this

Before anyone complains, 'beg' is a synonym of 'urge' which is a synonym of 'compel' which is a synonym of 'oblige' which is a synonym of 'obligate'. You know what else is a synonym of 'obligate'?
Require. Therefore, to beg is to require. Q.E.D.

If that is its purpose, I find it a crude way to make a point, to paraphrase Louisistan, and also one of the best jokes that SoG has made this month, possibly longer.

I really can't tell if you're damning me with faint praise here.

OOC:
1) I was speaking IC, not OOC.
2) Hmm. That is mildly funny, I'll give you that, but I'd still say that they are Better Together.

They are Better Together. Passing an omnibus bill on the question would be preferable to passing a bill on one topic and running any risk of the other one not passing as well.

It's a risk I'm willing to take. I intend to submit both at the same time and anyway, it's not the end of the world if one passes and the other doesn't, though such an occurrence would significantly delay my strategy.

[Wallenburg]

"Why is it necessary to separate this from 'Freedom of Religion'?"

Fairburn: It seems logical to separate the freedom to hold a religious belief from the freedom not to hold a religious belief. In any case, I can address both topics in more detail this way. The more streamlined, the better. Besides, Ambassadors have in the past submitted different but thematically linked proposals as part of a wider two-front strategy.

OOC: Also, Ara wanted me to write a proposal on preventing religious individuals from forcing their beliefs onto other people and I'm a man of my word, so there's that.

"Hmm. Very well. Let me see what this new proposal has to offer."

NOTING the large number of member states in which religion dominates public life,

CONCERNED that non-religious individuals may be pressured to join a particular religion or face persecution,

BELIEVING that freedom of religion necessarily requires freedom from religion,

WISHING therefore to put an end to these injustices,

"I would switch around the second and third preambulatory clauses. As it is currently structured, this preamble leaves 'these injustices' without a noun to clearly refer to."

1. DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,


2. DEFINES a religious ritual, for the purposes of this resolution, as an act that is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

"First, I would challenge the need for these definitions, given they have rather clear meanings already. Second, you may consider the possibility of removing these and making the definitions in 'Freedom of Religion' apply to all World Assembly resolutions. That can be tricky, since we do not know what kind of implications that may have on future legislation, but that is still something to think about."

4. DECLARES that for the purposes of present and future international legislation and of causing massive headaches, politely begging member states to take action shall be considered equivalent to requiring them to take action,

"This serves no function whatsoever. I like it."

5. POLITELY BEGS member states to respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belief,

6. POLITELY BEGS member states to refrain from forcing individuals to perform a particular religious ritual or to celebrate a particular religious festival,

"I fully support these clauses."

7. POLITELY BEGS member states not to discriminate against individuals purely on the basis of their lack of religious belief without a reasonable and compelling justification that abides by the spirit of this resolution,

"And what, may I ask, is the 'spirit' of this resolution? Clauses like these cause great trouble, and tend to open up rather large loopholes."

8. AFFIRMS the right of member states to mandate religious education in state-run educational centres as long as such education is not used as a vehicle to promote, endorse or degrade religious beliefs or lack of religious belief,

"What else is religious education used for but to promote and endorse a specific religious belief?"

9. AFFIRMS the right of member states to designate religious festivals as national holidays,

"Meh, I'm fine with that. If some religious group gets me a paid day off from work, I won't raise any questions."

10. AFFIRMS the right of member states to establish an official religion, so long as the mandates of this resolution and prior unrepealed legislation are followed.

"Also fine with this. Wallenburg prides itself on its secularism, but unlike many other member states, recognizes the need for protecting the ideological rights of other nations. That includes the right to establish a national religion."

[Valkiir]

I respectfully submit that this Resolution denies the basic Right of Self-determination of both nations and cultures. A nation or culture has an intrinsic right to determine its own religious doctrines and policies. Should those policies violate the human rights of an individual, group, or minority, then the policy should be treated as a human rights violation.

It is inherently against the principles of Self-determination to force the will of the international body on a nation in cases where human rights or basic human decency are not being violated. Forcing a theocracy, or traditionally religiously inclined to adopt a neutral position in relation to religion. In fact, would force it to put itself out of existence or force an entire nation to change its basic structure to appease the International body.

I also must advise caution on this matter since this draft proposal is far-reaching and has far too many possible implications to be taken lightly. The loose wording and imprecise definitions included would raise far more issues than it addresses.

With deepest respects.

[States of Glory WA Office]

NOTING the large number of member states in which religion dominates public life,

CONCERNED that non-religious individuals may be pressured to join a particular religion or face persecution,

BELIEVING that freedom of religion necessarily requires freedom from religion,

WISHING therefore to put an end to these injustices,

"I would switch around the second and third preambulatory clauses. As it is currently structured, this preamble leaves 'these injustices' without a noun to clearly refer to."

Fairburn: Fair enough.

1. DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,


2. DEFINES a religious ritual, for the purposes of this resolution, as an act that is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

"First, I would challenge the need for these definitions, given they have rather clear meanings already."

Fairburn: I was confident that the verb 'request' had a clear meaning, yet we all know how that turned out.

"Second, you may consider the possibility of removing these and making the definitions in 'Freedom of Religion' apply to all World Assembly resolutions. That can be tricky, since we do not know what kind of implications that may have on future legislation, but that is still something to think about."

Fairburn: While that would streamline things, there is no guarantee that Freedom of Religion would pass before this proposal is submitted.

"This serves no function whatsoever. I like it."

Fairburn: Ambassador, this serves a perfectly legitimate function. Causing headaches encourages growth of the pharmaceutical industry.

"And what, may I ask, is the 'spirit' of this resolution? Clauses like these cause great trouble, and tend to open up rather large loopholes."

Fairburn: The preamble generally informs people of what the spirit of the resolution is, so perhaps I should refer to the preamble in this particular clause?

"What else is religious education used for but to promote and endorse a specific religious belief?"

Fairburn: Why, to inform students of the facts regarding said beliefs in an impartial manner. You may as well ask what history education is used for but to promote and endorse a specific historical viewpoint.

I respectfully submit that this Resolution denies the basic Right of Self-determination of both nations and cultures. A nation or culture has an intrinsic right to determine its own religious doctrines and policies. Should those policies violate the human rights of an individual, group, or minority, then the policy should be treated as a human rights violation.

Fairburn: Indeed, and failing to guard one's populace from excessive religious influence is a violation of an individual's freedom of religion and is therefore a human rights violation.

It is inherently against the principles of Self-determination to force the will of the international body on a nation in cases where human rights or basic human decency are not being violated.

Fairburn: Thankfully, that is not the case here.

Forcing a theocracy, or traditionally religiously inclined to adopt a neutral position in relation to religion. In fact, would force it to put itself out of existence or force an entire nation to change its basic structure to appease the International body.

Fairburn: If an entire nation's basic structure involves forcing religious beliefs on its inhabitants then I refuse to weep when such a structure is dismantled. Are you going to defend slave states next?

I also must advise caution on this matter since this draft proposal is far-reaching and has far too many possible implications to be taken lightly. The loose wording and imprecise definitions included would raise far more issues than it addresses.

Fairburn: Do you have any specific criticisms? Your vague fear-mongering does nothing to help me improve this draft.

[Wallenburg]

"First, I would challenge the need for these definitions, given they have rather clear meanings already."

Fairburn: I was confident that the verb 'request' had a clear meaning, yet we all know how that turned out.

"I am afraid I do not follow."

"Second, you may consider the possibility of removing these and making the definitions in 'Freedom of Religion' apply to all World Assembly resolutions. That can be tricky, since we do not know what kind of implications that may have on future legislation, but that is still something to think about."

Fairburn: While that would streamline things, there is no guarantee that Freedom of Religion would pass before this proposal is submitted.

"Oh, absolutely. It's just a thought."

"This serves no function whatsoever. I like it."

Fairburn: Ambassador, this serves a perfectly legitimate function. Causing headaches encourages growth of the pharmaceutical industry.

"And, I imagine, it promotes the further employment of barristers, as they must aid their clients in the long process of converting the previously voluntary phrase 'politely begs' into a requirement."

"And what, may I ask, is the 'spirit' of this resolution? Clauses like these cause great trouble, and tend to open up rather large loopholes."

Fairburn: The preamble generally informs people of what the spirit of the resolution is, so perhaps I should refer to the preamble in this particular clause?

"I would not rely on preambulatory clauses to support the text laid down in operative clauses. Using phrases such as 'the spirit of this resolution' give member states even more leeway in how they interpret the text, as the 'spirit' is a very nebulous and subjective idea. This is not an unacceptable phrase to me--after all, I supported 'The Rule of Law' in spite of identical language. However, I would, as an author, look into more concrete ways of writing this clause."

"What else is religious education used for but to promote and endorse a specific religious belief?"

Fairburn: Why, to inform students of the facts regarding said beliefs in an impartial manner. You may as well ask what history education is used for but to promote and endorse a specific historical viewpoint.[/quote]
[quote]"So what you should grant member states the right to do is to require historical education on religion. In any case, the rest of the clause manages to eclipse any interpretation that might make room for mandatory religious indoctrination, so I will tentatively set that aside."

[Valkiir]

I respectfully submit that this Resolution denies the basic Right of Self-determination of both nations and cultures. A nation or culture has an intrinsic right to determine its own religious doctrines and policies. Should those policies violate the human rights of an individual, group, or minority, then the policy should be treated as a human rights violation.

Fairburn: Indeed, and failing to guard one's populace from excessive religious influence is a violation of an individual's freedom of religion and is therefore a human rights violation.

It is inherently against the principles of Self-determination to force the will of the international body on a nation in cases where human rights or basic human decency are not being violated.

Fairburn: Thankfully, that is not the case here.

Forcing a theocracy, or traditionally religiously inclined to adopt a neutral position in relation to religion. In fact, would force it to put itself out of existence or force an entire nation to change its basic structure to appease the International body.

Fairburn: If an entire nation's basic structure involves forcing religious beliefs on its inhabitants then I refuse to weep when such a structure is dismantled. Are you going to defend slave states next?

I also must advise caution on this matter since this draft proposal is far-reaching and has far too many possible implications to be taken lightly. The loose wording and imprecise definitions included would raise far more issues than it addresses.

Fairburn: Do you have any specific criticisms? Your vague fear-mongering does nothing to help me improve this draft.

Fairburn: Indeed, and failing to guard one's populace from excessive religious influence is a violation of an individual's freedom of religion and is therefore a human rights violation.

Define excessive... Do you mean to use your standards of excessive, the nation or culture in questions definition, or the standards of the majority?

Fairburn: Thankfully, that is not the case here.

That is your opinion of the matter. One I must respectfully disagree with.

Fairburn: If an entire nation's basic structure involves forcing religious beliefs on its inhabitants then I refuse to weep when such a structure is dismantled. Are you going to defend slave states next?.

I believe there are those who would say the same for Secular nations. Your sentiments toward them are equally .... hmm Flawed. And I will defend those I feel I must when a basic tenant The Republic of Valkiir was founded don is treated lightly. Self-Determination being the utmost.

And please, Let us avoid bringing in false parallels. My speaking up on the possible negative consequences of this proposal is in no way, shape, or form, on par with defending slavery. Is a basic deflection technique a fitting comment for an Ambassador to the World Assembly?

Fairburn: Do you have any specific criticisms? Your vague fear-mongering does nothing to help me improve this draft.

To urge caution before taking far-reaching action is not fear mongering. It is encouraging careful examination of unintended consequences.

Very well. define excessive religious influence, define what constitutes support or endorsement. Define what constitutes unfair discrimination/persecution.Define whether or not the proposal if ratified has the power to force nations with long-standing traditions and/or theocratic government to be radically and fundamentally altered.


On another note,In this case, my personal opinion and the opinion of the Republic of Valkiir are roughly parallel Forced Secularism, is as repugnant to me as forced Theism. Both force another person's views and beliefs on an individuals Nation, or culture. It is one thing to guarantee that every human is secure in the person and property, and another to use the power of the World Assembly to define how a nation or culture deals with one of the most intimately personal subjects imaginable.

Oh, by the way, Would having an icon, or symbol of a religion on the national flag count as an improper endorsement of a religion?...in your opinion that is.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

On another note,In this case, my personal opinion and the opinion of the Republic of Valkiir are roughly parallel Forced Secularism, is as repugnant to me as forced Theism. Both force another person's views and beliefs on an individuals Nation, or culture. It is one thing to guarantee that every human is secure in the person and property, and another to use the power of the World Assembly to define how a nation or culture deals with one of the most intimately personal subjects imaginable.

Teran Saber: "I fail to see how this proposal forces nations into secularism. All it does is apply one's right to follow the religion of their choice to people who choose not to follow a religion. I'm going to insist you point out the specific clauses that you believe imply forced secularism."

[Valkiir]

On another note,In this case, my personal opinion and the opinion of the Republic of Valkiir are roughly parallel Forced Secularism, is as repugnant to me as forced Theism. Both force another person's views and beliefs on an individuals Nation, or culture. It is one thing to guarantee that every human is secure in the person and property, and another to use the power of the World Assembly to define how a nation or culture deals with one of the most intimately personal subjects imaginable.

Teran Saber: "I fail to see how this proposal forces nations into secularism. All it does is apply one's right to follow the religion of their choice to people who choose not to follow a religion. I'm going to insist you point out the specific clauses that you believe imply forced secularism."

If my comment gave the impression that I felt this was forcing secularism on anyone It was not my intent. My intent was to express strong disapproval of outside groups dictating policy on religious matters.I chose the two polar extremes as examples of this behavior. I apologize for not being clear in my intended meaning.

While I find the concept of discrimination offensive in the extreme.However, barring extraordinary circumstances, I do not feel that any society, culture or nation has the right to dictate how another nation addresses religious matters.Unless they cause real immediate harm or loss or threaten the rights and security of those the Republic represents, or their actions and policies conflict so radically with the ideals, and morals of the Republic that we can not in good conscience remain silent.

In this case, two of my principles and those principles put into practice by the nation I represent are in conflict. In this case, I must speak up for the more basic principle of national self-determination. If other nations feel they can enforce their particular set of principles on any nation, then at some point their attentions may turn to our nation. In order to protect the basic right of our people, and nation to determine our best course of action freely and without outside interference I am directed to and personally inclined to oppose this sort of action.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: I was confident that the verb 'request' had a clear meaning, yet we all know how that turned out.

"I am afraid I do not follow."

Fairburn: In short, define anything and everything. There's always someone out there who will engage in dictionary wars.

Fairburn: Ambassador, this serves a perfectly legitimate function. Causing headaches encourages growth of the pharmaceutical industry.

"And, I imagine, it promotes the further employment of barristers, as they must aid their clients in the long process of converting the previously voluntary phrase 'politely begs' into a requirement."

Fairburn: Now you're getting it!

Fairburn: The preamble generally informs people of what the spirit of the resolution is, so perhaps I should refer to the preamble in this particular clause?

"I would not rely on preambulatory clauses to support the text laid down in operative clauses. Using phrases such as 'the spirit of this resolution' give member states even more leeway in how they interpret the text, as the 'spirit' is a very nebulous and subjective idea. This is not an unacceptable phrase to me--after all, I supported 'The Rule of Law' in spite of identical language. However, I would, as an author, look into more concrete ways of writing this clause."

Fairburn: I have to say, I'm reluctant to accept authoring advice from someone who has failed to repel forcefully all controversy from their resolutions, but I'll just leave it at that.

Fairburn: Why, to inform students of the facts regarding said beliefs in an impartial manner. You may as well ask what history education is used for but to promote and endorse a specific historical viewpoint.

"So what you should grant member states the right to do is to require historical education on religion. In any case, the rest of the clause manages to eclipse any interpretation that might make room for mandatory religious indoctrination, so I will tentatively set that aside."

Fairburn: In many societies, religion plays some role, however minor, in matters such as laws, identity and diversity. It would therefore be an affront to a child's education to deny them the most basic of knowledge required to function in such a society, unless you are also willing to deny them education in history, politics, civics, geography, home economics and sexual matters.

Fairburn: Indeed, and failing to guard one's populace from excessive religious influence is a violation of an individual's freedom of religion and is therefore a human rights violation.

Define excessive... Do you mean to use your standards of excessive, the nation or culture in questions definition, or the standards of the majority?

Fairburn: I think you'll find that all this proposal does is prevent nations from forcing people to follow a particular religion and from discriminating against non-religious individuals. That is the minimum standard for 'excessive', though as different nations will obviously have different standards, that's as far as the proposal goes. If you would like it to go further then I'd be more than happy to accommodate your opinion by all means.

Fairburn: Thankfully, that is not the case here.

That is your opinion of the matter. One I must respectfully disagree with.

Fairburn: Your disagreement has been noted and ignored.

Barbera: Where do all the disagreements go anyway?

Fairburn: Oh, I have a special place reserved for them.

Fairburn: If an entire nation's basic structure involves forcing religious beliefs on its inhabitants then I refuse to weep when such a structure is dismantled. Are you going to defend slave states next?.

I believe there are those who would say the same for Secular nations. Your sentiments toward them are equally .... hmm Flawed. And I will defend those I feel I must when a basic tenant The Republic of Valkiir was founded don is treated lightly. Self-Determination being the utmost.

Fairburn: Ambassador, you appear to be confusing self-determination with national sovereignty. Is your nation aware of the requirements laid out in GA #80 a.k.a A Promotion of Basic Education?

Harold: I'd assume so. Don't nations have to read the resolutions?

Fairburn: It was a joke, Harold.

Is a basic deflection technique a fitting comment for an Ambassador to the World Assembly?

Fairburn: Yes. Golly, you are new here, aren't you? Welcome to the Festering Snakepit^TM!

Fairburn: Do you have any specific criticisms? Your vague fear-mongering does nothing to help me improve this draft.

To urge caution before taking far-reaching action is not fear mongering. It is encouraging careful examination of unintended consequences.

Fairburn: You speak as if I give no thought whatsoever to the wording when I write up these drafts.

define excessive religious influence

Fairburn: It is a standard writing convention that you do not define terms that are not used in the active clauses.

define what constitutes support or endorsement.

Fairburn: Ambassador, I'm all for clear definitions, but there is no ambiguity in the terms 'support' or 'endorse'.

Define what constitutes unfair discrimination/persecution.

Fairburn: Once again, I'm not defining terms that I never use in the active clauses. Consider that your first lesson in writing a proposal.

Define whether or not the proposal if ratified has the power to force nations with long-standing traditions and/or theocratic government to be radically and fundamentally altered.

OOC: It's assumed, unless stated otherwise in the proposal, that compliance is mandatory. Saves up on having to write in an enforcement mechanism.

Oh, by the way, Would having an icon, or symbol of a religion on the national flag count as an improper endorsement of a religion?...in your opinion that is.

Fairburn: Clauses Five, Six and Seven set out what you cannot do. There is no mention of religious iconography anywhere in the proposal. You did read the bleeding thing, didn't you?

[Valkiir]

You did read the bleeding thing, didn't you?

Yes, yes I did several times. It might be a symptom of not having the same viewpoint as you do. YOU know exactly what you mean, and what you intend. I not being telepathic or omnipresent do not know your intent or thought processes. I have to gather that from what is in the wording....which leaves a good bit to the imagination.

Fairburn: You speak as if I give no thought whatsoever to the wording when I write up these drafts.

that is not my thought on the matter, however, I do feel that you are assuming that everyone understands your intent and will abide by the intent, not the letter of the proposal in cases where it can be abused, or used for a purpose you do not intend. Thre are always unintended or unforeseen consequences in any law or mandate.

Fairburn: It is a standard writing convention that you do not define terms that are not used in the active clauses.

Define what constitutes unfair discrimination/persecution.

Fairburn: Once again, I'm not defining terms that I never use in the active clauses. Consider that your first lesson in writing a proposal.
I think that those are subjects that need more clarification. and it should be addressed. They are highly subjective terms and open to broad interpretation.

Fairburn: Clauses Five, Six and Seven set out what you cannot do. There is no mention of religious iconography anywhere in the proposal. You did read the bleeding thing, didn't you?

Yes, I read the Bleeding thing....
I asked for a specific reason, IN the case of our flag the symbol on it is from one of our older faiths, it is a protective glyph and an evocation for protection..in short, a written prayer. It is worn on all of our uniforms, on all official documents, and any active duty personnel must salute it...

Your proposal states...

POLITELY BEGS member states to refrain from forcing individuals to perform a particular religious ritual or to celebrate a particular religious festival,

If an individual felt that this practice is, in fact, forcing a person to observe a religious ritual, and brought an action against our nation we would spend a good deal of time effort, and cash defending our practices and policies.without clear definitions and clear guidelines of what does count as forcing an individual to participate in religious activities it is a subjective call subject to widely varied interpretations.
which brings me to..

Fairburn: Ambassador, I'm all for clear definitions, but there is no ambiguity in the terms 'support' or 'endorse'.

On the contrary, they are completely ambiguous. in matters of law and diplomacy unless something is spelled out and in print, it is subject to creative interpretation. By not defining and spelling out various points, including the maximum extent that enforcement compliance can be taken to. How drastic a change to a society and how disruptive to that society mandated compliance can be....you leave the door open to a great deal of guesswork, confusion, and potential conflict.


If you wish to convince me to support, or at the least not to oppose this proposal if it makes it to the floor. Perhaps addressing my concerns instead of telling me how they don't matter, are misplaced, fear mongering, or due to some failing on my part might be more effective.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

Giulia Maccini: Although this code is part of the first article of our constitution, we are quite happy that respect among all beliefs will reach an official level. We appreciate the idea.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: Wait, what's this?

Fairburn: Oh, right. Yeah, we kinda split up that Freedom of Religion proposal.

Neville: I see. Well, no use crying over spilled milk. Comments are appreciated.

[Bears Armed]

POLITELY BEGS member states not to discriminate against individuals purely on the basis of their lack of religious belief without a reasonable and compelling justification that abides by the principles laid out in the preamble and by prior unrepealed legislation,

OOC; If you're making "Politely Begs" a mandatory term then you need to clarify that this clause does not block nations from making membership of a particular religion a requirement for participation in government, or for holding official positions, because otherwise (in my opinion, at least) it's an ideological ban on Theocracies and therefore potentially illegal.

[Xelsis]

"Ambassador, by what justification does this legislation restrict the powers of national governments solely on the basis of their actions being religious, yet not when said actions are secular? By what reasoning may a religious nation that requires its politicians to be members of the national church be restricted from doing so, but a communist nation that requires its politicians to be members of the Party is granted the freedom to do so?"

"We would also question if, given your reasoning that to beg is to require, you believe that with require being a synonym of obligate, being a synonym of oblige, being a synonym of compel, being a synonym of urge, being a synonym of pray, that previous legislation passed by this body simply expresses a religious desire that said resolutions be followed?"