[SUBMITTED] Repeal GA #114

[Dorran]

Representative Patrick Byrnes rises to speak.

"The Dorran delegation agrees that freedom of religion is an unalienable right of sentient beings. That being said, those individuals do not have the right to cause physical harm to others, even where their religion dictates them to do so. I suppose if a female were to consent to her genitals being mutilated, it would be permissible, a caveat that GAR #114 allows for. We would oppose any attempt at repealing GAR #114, as the mutilation of any body part of a sentient being is morally reprehensible."

As Rep. Byrnes sits back down, he is heard muttering to himself.

"Although how a nation that only allows a single religion within its borders can make a 'religious freedom' argument with a straight face is beyond me..."

[The Sons of Jacob]

"If you had a religion that believes in sacrificing the person in power on the full moon, would that be protected?"

Please answer.

This depends on the exact situation. Is this person also a member of said religion? If so, yes. If not, then we are talking about jihad here, and anyone may fight that.

[The Atlae Isles]

Please answer.

This depends on the exact situation. Is this person also a member of said religion? If so, yes. If not, then we are talking about jihad here, and anyone may fight that.

But jihad or any other form of terrorism in the name of religion would be considered protected by your version of 'freedom of religion,' would it not?

[The Sons of Jacob]

This depends on the exact situation. Is this person also a member of said religion? If so, yes. If not, then we are talking about jihad here, and anyone may fight that.

But jihad or any other form of terrorism in the name of religion would be considered protected by your version of 'freedom of religion,' would it not?

No, because said individual has freedom of religion, he does not have to be in yours.

[Greifenburg]

This depends on the exact situation. Is this person also a member of said religion? If so, yes. If not, then we are talking about jihad here, and anyone may fight that.

"Now I'm confused. So you're only advocating absolute religious freedom when it is about traditions you might care about, but draw the line when questionable traditions of other religons are involved? In that case, "it impedes religious freedom" might not be the strongest argument."

[The Sons of Jacob]

This depends on the exact situation. Is this person also a member of said religion? If so, yes. If not, then we are talking about jihad here, and anyone may fight that.

"Now I'm confused. So you're only advocating absolute religious freedom when it is about traditions you might care about, but draw the line when questionable traditions of other religons are involved? In that case, "it impedes religious freedom" might not be the strongest argument."

You may not use freedom of religion to impede someone else's freedom of religion.

[The Atlae Isles]

But jihad or any other form of terrorism in the name of religion would be considered protected by your version of 'freedom of religion,' would it not?

No, because said individual has freedom of religion, he does not have to be in yours.

"That makes no sense. If a tenant of some religion is to attack members of other religions, according to your version of "religious freedom," they can do that, otherwise, they aren't following their religion, so the government can't do anything about that. Now, by other standards, religious freedom has to cross a line somewhere. FGM and religious warfare crosses that line all the way over there."

[The Sons of Jacob]

No, because said individual has freedom of religion, he does not have to be in yours.

"That makes no sense. If a tenant of some religion is to attack members of other religions, according to your version of "religious freedom," they can do that, otherwise, they aren't following their religion, so the government can't do anything about that. Now, by other standards, religious freedom has to cross a line somewhere. FGM and religious warfare crosses that line all the way over there."

If your religion needs you to attack others, go ahead, try. They can fight back.

[Grays Harbor]

ACKNOWLEDGING that FGM is a part of some religions,

NOTING that then in some situations, GAR #114 restricts said freedom of religion.

NOTING that FGM is a cultural tradition in some nations.

There have been many religions and/or cultures who routinely practice human sacrifice. Are you in favor of permitting that as well? Or do you draw the line at "cultural" torture?

This is one of the few resolutions we are not even willing to debate about. This is a Bad Idea. Trying to justify this barbaric practice in the name of "cultural traditions" is horrific.

[The Atlae Isles]

"That makes no sense. If a tenant of some religion is to attack members of other religions, according to your version of "religious freedom," they can do that, otherwise, they aren't following their religion, so the government can't do anything about that. Now, by other standards, religious freedom has to cross a line somewhere. FGM and religious warfare crosses that line all the way over there."

If your religion needs you to attack others, go ahead, try. They can fight back.

And if they are attacking pacifist religions?

[Grays Harbor]

If your religion needs you to attack others, go ahead, try. They can fight back.

And if they are attacking pacifist religions?

Then as our Nation has a tradition of defending the defenseless, they would have to go through us. Something not many have accomplished with any degree of success, or survival. Depending on how bad they tick us off.

[The Sons of Jacob]

If your religion needs you to attack others, go ahead, try. They can fight back.

And if they are attacking pacifist religions?

Run. Ever heard of the Anabaptists?

[The Atlae Isles]

And if they are attacking pacifist religions?

Run. Ever heard of the Anabaptists?

OOC: They are pretty much the Amish now.

IC: "What are you talking about? And you don't seem to be getting the point. Religious freedom ends where their rights begin."

[The Sons of Jacob]

ACKNOWLEDGING that FGM is a part of some religions,

NOTING that then in some situations, GAR #114 restricts said freedom of religion.

NOTING that FGM is a cultural tradition in some nations.

There have been many religions and/or cultures who routinely practice human sacrifice. Are you in favor of permitting that as well? Or do you draw the line at "cultural" torture?

This is one of the few resolutions we are not even willing to debate about. This is a Bad Idea. Trying to justify this barbaric practice in the name of "cultural traditions" is horrific.

Sacrifice is a tough one. If it is a member of said religion, yes, permit it. Sure, discourage it, but permit it. And stop comparing FGM to killing. They are not even close.

[Greifenburg]

You may not use freedom of religion to impede someone else's freedom of religion.

"So you would force someone to not properly follow his religion, which is exactly the opposite of what you proclaim to want. I hope this makes it clearer why my office thinks that this makes no sense. In reality, you want to protect the freedom of religion according to your own moral standart, but not absolute freedom of religion. In that regard, we are not so different. It is just that my morality places the wellbeing and right of the person over the right to religious practice."

[Calladan]

Does male circumsicion hurt? Yes.
What are the benefits? Dont know, but its tradition.
Why should we stop the FGM, it is part of the tradition!

You are probably being sarcastic, but I agree with what you just said.
If male circumcision is not torture, neither is female.

Sorry, but that is last line is simply not true, and there are several BILLION medical studies to prove it.

According to studies, FGM can have the following side effects :-

constant pain
pain and/or difficulty having sex
repeated infections, which can lead to infertility
bleeding, cysts and abscesses
problems passing urine or incontinence
depression, flashbacks and self-harm
problems during labour and childbirth, which can be life-threatening for mother and baby

According to studies, circumcision can have the following side effects :-

The foreskin might be cut too short or too long
The foreskin might fail to heal properly
The remaining foreskin might reattach to the end of the penis, requiring minor surgical repair
Infection

When you look at those two lists, and you look at the long term, harmful effects of the side effects, I think most people would admit that FGM is criminally dangerous and should be banned for the rest of eternity. And anyone who wants to practice it should be forced to suffer from ALL of those side effects for twenty years before being allowed to vote to repeal the resolution.

[Epic win awesome nice guys ever to world]

"Not really. One can still belong to a religion without obeying all it's tenants."

No. You can't.

Why not?
If that's the case, then any muslim who doesn't "kill unbelievers where they find them" is not a real muslim.

[The Sons of Jacob]

You are probably being sarcastic, but I agree with what you just said.
If male circumcision is not torture, neither is female.

Sorry, but that is last line is simply not true, and there are several BILLION medical studies to prove it.

According to studies, FGM can have the following side effects :-

constant pain
pain and/or difficulty having sex
repeated infections, which can lead to infertility
bleeding, cysts and abscesses
problems passing urine or incontinence
depression, flashbacks and self-harm
problems during labour and childbirth, which can be life-threatening for mother and baby

According to studies, circumcision can have the following side effects :-

The foreskin might be cut too short or too long
The foreskin might fail to heal properly
The remaining foreskin might reattach to the end of the penis, requiring minor surgical repair
Infection

When you look at those two lists, and you look at the long term, harmful effects of the side effects, I think most people would admit that FGM is criminally dangerous and should be banned for the rest of eternity. And anyone who wants to practice it should be forced to suffer from ALL of those side effects for twenty years before being allowed to vote to repeal the resolution.

Ok, if I'm correct there are different kinds of FGM, with various levels of risk.

[The Sons of Jacob]

No. You can't.

Why not?
If that's the case, then any muslim who doesn't "kill unbelievers where they find them" is not a real muslim.

Why do you think there are so many terrorists?

[Calladan]

Sorry, but that is last line is simply not true, and there are several BILLION medical studies to prove it.

According to studies, FGM can have the following side effects :-

constant pain
pain and/or difficulty having sex
repeated infections, which can lead to infertility
bleeding, cysts and abscesses
problems passing urine or incontinence
depression, flashbacks and self-harm
problems during labour and childbirth, which can be life-threatening for mother and baby

According to studies, circumcision can have the following side effects :-

The foreskin might be cut too short or too long
The foreskin might fail to heal properly
The remaining foreskin might reattach to the end of the penis, requiring minor surgical repair
Infection

When you look at those two lists, and you look at the long term, harmful effects of the side effects, I think most people would admit that FGM is criminally dangerous and should be banned for the rest of eternity. And anyone who wants to practice it should be forced to suffer from ALL of those side effects for twenty years before being allowed to vote to repeal the resolution.

Ok, if I'm correct there are different kinds of FGM, with various levels of risk.

Are you going to repeal the ban on just some kinds? No.
Are you going to repeal the ban on all kinds? Yes.

So, if I'm correct, your answer doesn't actually provide any kind of answer to my point.

[Thyerata]

Sir, until you formally join this organisation, we will not even countenance your draft.

*Matthew throws his copy of the draft into the incinerator nearby*

[Lanian Empire]

Please answer.

This depends on the exact situation. Is this person also a member of said religion? If so, yes. If not, then we are talking about jihad here, and anyone may fight that.

Okay, can we not immediately call religious murder "jihad"? Jihad is any kind of religious struggle. Whether it be you trying to maintain your faith in God in an inner struggle or fighting against someone trying to take your religious beliefs away. It never automatically means killing someone in the name of religion. Western culture has just warped it to mean that. The Islamic jurisprudence classifies jihad in which you are fighting outside forces to be low and the lesser jihad. The greater jihad is the struggle within you against base impulses.

[The Sons of Jacob]

Sir, until you formally join this organisation, we will not even countenance your draft.

*Matthew throws his copy of the draft into the incinerator nearby*

I am, sir.

[Auralia]

((OOC: I don't think it's a coincidence that a nation called "Greater Gilead" is writing a proposal of this nature. I wouldn't take this seriously.))

[Serrus]

IC: Coco is horrorstruck. "What the [expletive]? What the [expletive]? WHAT THE [EXPLETIVE] WHY?! NONONONONONONONONONooooooooooooooooooooooo...." She then shuffles off, presumably to drink away the horror.
OOC: What the kriff, dude. No. Just no.