[Draft] Secularism in Governance

[Covenstone]

Clause 5 - "Religious institutions from directly involving themselves in the political process of Member-States, through the endorsement or financial support of political candidates or organizations,"

Doesn't this violate GAR #30? If I, as the Head of the Trident and the Lance Coven, want to endorse Tiffany P Snootyface as the next head of the local council, don't I have the freedom to do that under GAR #30? Isn't that enshrined in World Assembly law?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Are religious institutions people?

[Nessuna-Arma]

Are religious institutions people?

A better question is, can the government be a religious institution? I've been trying to get the author to answer my question about the intended purpose of this bill, and I have been ignored so far, but I suppose it doesn't matter.

According to the proposal, a "religious institution" is any organization with "purposes specifically relating to religious activities." A theocratic government would fit that definition. If a deity is the source from which all governmental authority derives, then anything the government does would relate to a religious activity, from public worship to declaring religious holidays to the mere passing of national legislation or a budget. In which case, as I read it, clause 5 prohibits the government from being the government, or from being involved in the governmental process, including the electoral process. The other prohibitive clauses similarly devour themselves.

It is obvious that the only way this proposal makes sense, is if it effectively outlaws all theocracies. Now I understand I'm "the new guy" here, but I feel compelled to ask, in the interest of international goodwill, why would this organization want to outlaw theocracies?

If, as the author purports, the intended purpose of this legislation is to:

strike against oppressive governments justifying oppression with religion

then it occurs to me that the goal should be to eliminate the oppression itself, and not to limit the involvement of religion. Unless you are under the impression that all theocracies are oppressive, which sounds quite prejudicial or even xenophobic to me.

[Tinfect Continental States]

"I'm sorry. Um, ma'am? Or, bal?" The Universal Translator apparently doesn't quite know what to do with that last word. "I'm sorry I don't know your culture's clothing cues. Um. Perhaps you could clarify that part of the proposal? Because it does come across that way. And there is still the problem that it blocks the Azosk tribe from leveraging as a group, without blocking the other tribes. And to be honest, tribal families should be allowed to lobby for their interests."

"Clothing cues? I- ah, no, I see. Ma'am is acceptable. In any case, yes, the section of the draft will be altered for clarity. As for the Azosk tribe, as-written, they would still be able to engage in collective politicking, they will merely have to divorce their doing so from the actions of the faith."

Clause 5 - "Religious institutions from directly involving themselves in the political process of Member-States, through the endorsement or financial support of political candidates or organizations,"

Doesn't this violate GAR #30? If I, as the Head of the Trident and the Lance Coven, want to endorse Tiffany P Snootyface as the next head of the local council, don't I have the freedom to do that under GAR #30? Isn't that enshrined in World Assembly law?

"Excuse me but unless you expect me to believe that you yourself are a religious institution, absolutely nothing in this legislation would prevent anything of the sort. You may personally endorse whomever you like, you may not take to the pulpit and claim it to be the divine will that the congregation vote in a particular manner."

Clauses 3 & 5 would make it impossible for national governments to make membership (and possibly holding at least some specified rank) in the state religion a prerequisite for public office, which is a fundamental requirement for the existence of theocratic government.

OOC:
Even so, I don't remember anything in the ruling saying that you couldn't effectively outlaw something. In fact, to my knowledge, it was very much the opposite. If anyone happened to have the ruling on-hand, we could put this to rest.

It was multiple rulings, and although many of those were back on Jolt the basic principle hasn't officially been changed since then.

You know full well I'm referring to the one made under GenSec, not the Jolt rulings or any Moderator rulings, come on mate.

[Covenstone]

Clause 5 - "Religious institutions from directly involving themselves in the political process of Member-States, through the endorsement or financial support of political candidates or organizations,"

Doesn't this violate GAR #30? If I, as the Head of the Trident and the Lance Coven, want to endorse Tiffany P Snootyface as the next head of the local council, don't I have the freedom to do that under GAR #30? Isn't that enshrined in World Assembly law?

"Excuse me but unless you expect me to believe that you yourself are a religious institution, absolutely nothing in this legislation would prevent anything of the sort. You may personally endorse whomever you like, you may not take to the pulpit and claim it to be the divine will that the congregation vote in a particular manner."

I am The Head of The Trident and The Lance and My Coven wants to endorse Miss Snootyface. A coven is a group of witches and BY ANY DEFINITION YOU WISH TO USE that is a religious institution.

The only reason I am saying it is I am the Head of my Coven so I speak for it. So unless you want all 2,213 members to talk at once, I do not think it is unreasonable for just one of us to express an opinion on behalf of the entire body of The Coven.

However that does not answer my question. Freedom of Expression gives us the right to express our views as we see fit, and that includes political views. So if The Coven, who I am empowered to speak for, wishes to endorse someone for political office, then I believe, under GAR #30, we are entitled to do so, are we not?

x--x--x

I'm also going to have to argue it violates GAR #27 as well.

1.) All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view.

We wish to come together to express our view that Miss Snootyface is the best person for the job.

2.) No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to infringe upon these rights

Clause 5 prevents us from doing that, therefore you are infringing on our rights.

x--x--x

Also, and I am sorry for three posts in a row, but these all occurred to me one after the other, the final clause violates GAR #30 after all.

"Member-States to retract any statements made by government representatives stating or implying the government support or acceptance of any religious belief, aside from those that solely state the personal beliefs of representatives,"

The governing council of Covenstone is made up of the various heads of Covens and Religious Orders, and I (as head of the council) am the de facto leader of Covenstone. In this position I am allowed to state the belief of my people in a guiding being, on behalf of the people I am leading. And I would argue this is covered under my right of freedom of expression, since this does not cause a danger to anyone, it does not incite widespread violence, it does not fall under defamation or copyright laws (unless the phrase I use has been copyrighted which would be the height of bitchiness) nor does it reveal confidential government information because I am fairly sure most of my people know that there is a divine being guiding us.

Just saying.

(If it helps, I am not even going to get in to the violations of the Charter of Civil Rights or Freedom of The Press).

[Covenstone]

(snip)

[Covenstone]

(snip)

[Fauxia]

"Member-States from creating or maintaining any law pertaining to the legitimacy or acceptance of any religious belief," This outlaws theocracy, as Separatist People's and BA were concerned. That's illegal.

[Covenstone]

"Member-States from creating or maintaining any law pertaining to the legitimacy or acceptance of any religious belief," This outlaws theocracy, as Separatist People's and BA were concerned. That's illegal.

Based on how that ruling goes, I have a vast swathe of legality challenges set to go. And, depending on how bored I get, I might actually set them off tomorrow

[Fauxia]

"Member-States from creating or maintaining any law pertaining to the legitimacy or acceptance of any religious belief," This outlaws theocracy, as Separatist People's and BA were concerned. That's illegal.

Based on how that ruling goes, I have a vast swathe of legality challenges set to go. And, depending on how bored I get, I might actually set them off tomorrow

Haha. I'd be there to aid you if you need it.

[Tinfect Continental States]

"Member-States from creating or maintaining any law pertaining to the legitimacy or acceptance of any religious belief," This outlaws theocracy, as Separatist People's and BA were concerned. That's illegal.

Based on how that ruling goes, I have a vast swathe of legality challenges set to go. And, depending on how bored I get, I might actually set them off tomorrow

OOC:
Okay, first of all, I know you are aware of the edit function, so there is no reason whatsoever for the three posts that all quote eachother. Second, if you have a legality challenge to make, go on and actually make it instead of threatening one.

[Fauxia]

Based on how that ruling goes, I have a vast swathe of legality challenges set to go. And, depending on how bored I get, I might actually set them off tomorrow

OOC:
Okay, first of all, I know you are aware of the edit function, so there is no reason whatsoever for the three posts that all quote eachother. Second, if you have a legality challenge to make, go on and actually make it instead of threatening one.

They said they will probably. I probably won't as multiple members of GenSec have said it outlaws theocracy. I don't need much more help. Illegal it is, and very clearly

[The Telsar Alliance]

A middle-aged man in a business suit, apparently of Japanese descent, materializes in this odd room, apparently halfway through a speech.

"... in conclusion, though in agreement ideologically, on the principal of national sovereignty in government decision, I, on behalf of my employers and the planet of Enogon, must voice my opposition to this measure.

"Additionally, I fail to see how this issue is of interstellar importance."

He looks around the room as he finishes. "Good God, where the hell am I?"

[Covenstone]

Based on how that ruling goes, I have a vast swathe of legality challenges set to go. And, depending on how bored I get, I might actually set them off tomorrow

OOC:
Okay, first of all, I know you are aware of the edit function, so there is no reason whatsoever for the three posts that all quote eachother. Second, if you have a legality challenge to make, go on and actually make it instead of threatening one.

<ooc>I actually do know there is an edit function, but the five previous times I have used it, someone has responded to the post while I have been editing it, which made it look like I was trying to make THEM look like they were quoting me out of context. So I found it easier to post instead.

And I was waiting to see if this had any merit at all, since it basically interferes with game mechanics, outlaws theocracies and does all sorts of other things that are probably WAY above the scope of legality challenges before I took the more "game based" route, but *shrug* if you insist.</ooc>

[Covenstone]

Apologies for the double post, but as I have a lot to say, I didn't want to tack it on to the end of the previous post (especially since that was an out of character response).

The apparently mistimed and uncouth legal challenge aside, I have a vast number of reasons why I vehemently object to this proposal.

I can only speak to how it would affect my nation, but I would assume that other countries in a similar situation would have similar issues. But, as always, I want to be clear that I am speaking only for, and of, myself.

Covenstone is a country with two primary, and a number of tertiary religions. The primary religion is, for want of a better phrase, the religion of "witchcraft" with is an umbrella term for a number of beliefs, all of which have a common root. The second primary religion is a version of Christianity. The other religions are what you would expect - Islam, Hindu, Judaism, Atheism, Satanism and so on. And we all live in peace and harmony. There are enclaves and areas where the various members of each religion live, and they are free to make laws that suit themselves in those areas, but The World Assembly resolutions apply nationwide, and there are various laws that apply nationwide. (I mention the GARs because that will become important shortly).

We are governed by a council made up of members of every religion, to ensure that every voice is represented. This was chosen, because the alternative (having an entirely secular council where no religious points of view were represented) was considered to be out of the question.

With this in mind, here we are.

Applauding the great strides made by this Assembly in ensuring the rights of the citizens of Member-States,

Recognizing that despite these victories, there yet remains the necessity of further legislation on this front,

Seeking to further this Assembly's goals as stated in its original mission and demonstrated through standing legislation,

What mission? It has been pointed out that The WA doesn't have a mission. And the standing legislation is to give EVERYONE a voice, and not to silence them just because they happen to have beliefs you disagree with or find uncomfortable or unhelpful.

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,
Religious Institutions as formal organizations with purposes specifically relating to religious activities, such as the establishment of places of worship, the training of clergy, or proselytism

What I take from this is any group that gives itself a name, and engages in religious activities, is a "Religious Institution." So a coven of witches, a publishing company who publishes a religious newsletter (to spread the word of their divine being, which could also be classed as proselytising), a Sunday School, a committee that gets together to raise money to host a talk by a local preacher...... if you can form a group to do something linked to religion, then arguably it is a "Religious Institution" under this definition.

Prohibits,
Member-States from creating or maintaining any law pertaining to the legitimacy or acceptance of any religious belief

Would this not be better phrased as "the illegitimacy or unacceptability of any religious belief"? Because under this phrasing, a law saying "All religious beliefs must be considered acceptable and legitimate" would be considered illegal. And in Covenstone, where we consider the acceptance of any religious belief to be sacrosanct (if you will pardon the phrase) then such a law would be important.

Prohibits,
Member-States from creating or maintaining any law promoting or otherwise supporting any religious belief above others,

Within the certain enclaves, some religions are given priority over others. However, under GAR #35 that does not mean the state or local government is permitted to discriminate against citizens. GAR #35 expressly forbids such action in no uncertain terms, so we have no problem with religions being promoted above others in certain areas of the country where more members of that religion live. It doesn't affect anyone there, it doesn't interfere with the operation of the government or the lives of the citizens so why add extra laws that won't have any affect?

Prohibits,
Member-States from creating or maintaining any law establishing a requirement regarding the acceptance or rejection of any religious belief, or membership within any religious institution, as a prerequisite for holding any position within a government office or industry,

This will be the one that causes the most problem. My role as leader of Covenstone comes with the title of Crown Princess. It is the title of the office, so when I retire it will pass to the next leader (and they will become Crown Princess or Crown Prince). However to serve on The Council I have to be Queen of The Witches, and I have to be a Witch. If I am not a Witch, I cannot serve. There are also positions of Chief Rabbi, Chief Vicar, Chief Priest, Chief Advocate (The Church of Satan) and so forth. ALL of these have to be held by a member of the given religion, because otherwise they would not have the title they have. And you literally can not have an atheist as Chief Priest, Chief Vicar, Chief Advocate and Queen of The Witches because it would be an insult to the rest of the members of the religion. I literally cannot overstate how much of an insult it would be. We are talking civil war, blood on the streets, death, murder, dogs and cats living together......

Also, depending on your definition of industry (which was not made clear) I am pretty sure that Priests, Vicars, Curates, Rabbis, Advocates and so forth probably have to be members of the given religion. But, as I said, that depends on the term "industry."

Prohibits,
Member-States from enforcing the acceptance of any state-run or affiliated religion, or religious institution,

This doesn't so much apply to Covenstone, but I would imagine if a country is entirely Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Satanic or some other religion, then this would probably be an issue.

Prohibits,
Religious institutions from directly involving themselves in the political process of Member-States, through the endorsement or financial support of political candidates or organizations

I have made my objections to this clear elsewhere, however just to summarise :-

GAR #27 permits groups (or Religious Institutions) to organise for any purpose they see fit, and this would seem to violate this.
GAR #155 permits newspapers to operate without government censorship, and as I suggested above, a newspaper that exists to spread the word of their divine being can be classified as a Religious Institutions and as such should be free to operate without censorship in regard to who it endorses or what else it says.

Further more (and this is where I might lose some of you, assuming I have not lost you already) I have one more point to make.

When I am speaking for myself, I am Albertine Winters, and my personal opinions are my own. And I can see that, in that instance, I am not a Religious Institution.

However, if I am speaking as The Leader of Covenstone, then I am speaking for The Office of The Leader. Which is also The Queen of The Witches, or The Head of The Lance and The Trident (my coven) or (from a certain point of view) ALL of The Witches in Covenstone.

I believe that, from a certain point of view, I can make the argument that when I am speaking in an official capacity (when I am speaking as Queen of The Witches, or The Head of my coven) that it could be argued I am a Religious Institution, or at least that the view I am expressing is coming from one. (In the same what that some people might view an Arch Bishop or The Pope as a Religious Institution).

And in that instance, this final clause would violate the right to freedom of expression.

But, as I said, the last one is a bit of a stretch, and not my most convincing argument, because it does require a leap to view a person as their official office, rather than just a person. (I do it all the time, because it's my office!)


Anyway. That's my view of why this something that is a bad idea. I can't see what purpose it serves, because GAR #35 prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, so I am not sure why a government would have to prohibit any extra religious laws. It just seems unnecessarily mean.

[Sciongrad]

Fortunately, since it is now entirely possible to have a State Religion under the draft, it doesn't do anything of the sort, it merely requires them to compromise on their beliefs on the fronts of, say, hiring, and financial support for religious institutions. And could you please direct me to the ruling where this was stated?

OOC: How does this resolution not violate GAR#35, which allows member nations to discriminate where there is a compelling practical purpose? Theocracy, in the abstract, is a protected ideology under the ideological ban rule. Theocracies have a right under GAR#35 to discriminate on the basis of religion for political qualifications.

Also, Convenstone, please could you condense your posts? Really no need to be triple posting.

[Covenstone]

Fortunately, since it is now entirely possible to have a State Religion under the draft, it doesn't do anything of the sort, it merely requires them to compromise on their beliefs on the fronts of, say, hiring, and financial support for religious institutions. And could you please direct me to the ruling where this was stated?

OOC: How does this resolution not violate GAR#35, which allows member nations to discriminate where there is a compelling practical purpose? Theocracy, in the abstract, is a protected ideology under the ideological ban rule. Theocracies have a right under GAR#35 to discriminate on the basis of religion for political qualifications.

Also, Convenstone, please could you condense your posts? Really no need to be triple posting.

I've sort of fixed it, but as I explained, when there are gaps that long between posting, I don't like editing them because it can look like I am trying to make it look like people are misquoting me. (Or something like that). I will endeavour to avoid doing it in the future.

Also, what she said about GAR #35

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "While I personally agree with this proposal's stated intent, the Greater Siriusian Domain is going to have to side with Covenstone on the grounds that the proposal would cause disastrous problems with some member states."

"Our view on this is a matter of cost vs benefit. We do not see the benefits of removing the potentially corrupt influence of religious organizations from governments as worth the cost of forcing some nations to either leave the World Assembly or dismantle their entire government system in order to rebuild it from scratch in order to comply. This is a comparable situation to many of the previous proposals regarding access to space when applied to space-faring nations."

[Essu Beti]

"Clothing cues? I- ah, no, I see. Ma'am is acceptable. In any case, yes, the section of the draft will be altered for clarity. As for the Azosk tribe, as-written, they would still be able to engage in collective politicking, they will merely have to divorce their doing so from the actions of the faith."

"But the Azosk tribe is our priest tribe, the only ones who can hear the words of the Brothers without being overwhelmed by it. They and the samarim are our faith."

[Araraukar]

The other religions are what you would expect - Islam, Hindu, Judaism, Atheism, Satanism and so on.

OOC: *cough*atheismisnotareligion*cough* & *cough*satanismisaphilosophy*cough*

OOC: Theocracy, in the abstract, is a protected ideology under the ideological ban rule.

OOC: But socialism or communism aren't? I thought the whole point of you guys' approach was that "you can ban relevant tenets of an ideology without banning an ideology"? If you can require a truly communist (as in, not a sovietfailstate) nation to legalize private ownership and enforce foreign patents based on such, without destroying the communist state, surely you can require a theocratic state to not actually involve religion in the governing process.

Theocracies have a right under GAR#35 to discriminate on the basis of religion for political qualifications.

What exactly would be the pressing requirement needed for being allowed to discriminate? GenSec has literally said you're not allowed to count citizenship as such, but suddenly religious conviction is ok? Actually, if your opinion here was a ruling, you'd end up in a situation where yes, the theorcracy could limit participation based on religious conviction, but would have to allow non-citizens of the right conviction to partake the governing of the nation... which cannot make sense even to you (not just you personally, Scion, the whole GenSec).

"But the Azosk tribe is our priest tribe, the only ones who can hear the words of the Brothers without being overwhelmed by it. They and the samarim are our faith."

IC: Tribalist fluff aside, are your people finished filling out the questionnaire yet, Iksana?

[Covenstone]

The other religions are what you would expect - Islam, Hindu, Judaism, Atheism, Satanism and so on.

OOC: *cough*atheismisnotareligion*cough* & *cough*satanismisaphilosophy*cough*

<ooc>I was using a generic term to cover a lot of things in one go. Also :- there is this which, you know, *shrug*.

My point is Covenstone is a big tent with room for a lot of beliefs and we don't want to start being mean to people just because someone in another nation things it is a good idea.</ooc>

[Essu Beti]

IC: Tribalist fluff aside, are your people finished filling out the questionnaire yet, Iksana?

"I'd hardly call it fluff, since tribal matters tend to turn into a lot of political bullshit," Iksana says, flicking his tail. "Even came up when filling out your questionnaire, believe it or not. I'm just glad I was here instead of in the debate halls, let me tell you. Marsanis has it now. If you want I can go get it from them; Quill seems to be holding her own here."

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Theocracy, in the abstract, is a protected ideology under the ideological ban rule.

OOC: But socialism or communism aren't? I thought the whole point of you guys' approach was that "you can ban relevant tenets of an ideology without banning an ideology"? If you can require a truly communist (as in, not a sovietfailstate) nation to legalize private ownership and enforce foreign patents based on such, without destroying the communist state, surely you can require a theocratic state to not actually involve religion in the governing process.

OOC
No. The equivalent to that would be to say that 'Communist' states can't require that their leadership & legislators are members of a Communist Party... which would be considered an ideological ban.
Requiring nations to legalize private ownership of property, after all, neither bars any communists within those nations from pooling their own formerly-private property on a 'communal' basis nor bars any Communist governments from acquiring property (by whatever means remain legal) and running that on a communist basis. However, if somebody were to attempt a proposal actually forbidding the communal or 'state' ownership of property completely within member nations then that would be an ideological ban.
What that rule basically boils down to is that the WA can neither (a) forbid people to adhere to any ideology (or punish people just for doing so), which would be the relevant point in the example above; nor (b) bar people from participation in government within member nations on the basis of their ideological allegiances, which would be a relevant point for this proposal; nor (c) meddle with the actual formation or structure of member nation's government (executive, legislative, or any other 'branch' [such as 'judicial'] that might be recognized in some nations), which would also be a relevant point for this proposal.

(That is how I interpret the rule, anyway, although possibly other GenSec members might disagree on some of the details...)

[East Angria]

"We've talked this through back and forth, took us quite a while, but most of us are in favor. Those that aren't are fundamentalist lunatics and have basically admitted that they are lunatics. It looks like a good bill to promote secularism and freedom from religion, without decreasing freedom of practicing a religion. We're in favor."

[Covenstone]

I would still like an answer to my main question :-

What purpose does this serve? The preamble doesn't specifically say anything other than some vague claptrap about "securing rights" which is not helpful or specific.

And even if the leader of a country, or the entire government, is Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, or Satanic, the government itself is prohibited from passing discriminatory laws or discriminating against its citizens under GAR #35. That much is clear in the text of the resolution.

So other than pissing off a whole bunch of people for no other reason than the author feels like it, WHAT PURPOSE DOES THIS PROPOSAL SERVE? What good does it do? Who will it help?